Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gulab Chand Jangde vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2025
Author: Prem Narayan Singh
Bench: Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37206
1 WP-28535-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 28535 of 2022
GULAB CHAND JANGDE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Om Shankar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri V.P. Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
(Reserved on: 26/06/2025)
(Pronounced on: 07/08/2028)
The petitioner by way of this petition has challenged the order Annex.P/4
dated 10/10/2022, whereby the pension of the petitioner has been
permanently withheld in terms of Rule 8(1)(b) of the M.P. Civil Services
(Pension) Rules (for short referred to as 'Pension Rules') on account of his
conviction for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section
13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on
the post of Reader (Assistant Grade-II) in the office of Collector District
Seoni. On allegation that he demanded and accepted certain bribe of
Rs.2,000/- in connection with correction of a typographical mistake in an
order, he was prosecuted and vide judgment dated 15/12/2021, he has been
convicted under the aforesaid provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37206
2 WP-28535-2022
sentenced to 4 years RI with fine and default stipulations. It is the case of the
petitioner that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on
31/08/2016 and during pendency of trial, he was getting the anticipatory
pension upto 30/11/2021 and upon conviction, the order Annex.P/4 has been
passed thereby, permanently withdrawing 100% pension.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order withdrawing pension
could not have been passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner and in this regard, reliance is placed on judgment of Full Bench of
this Court in the case of Ram Sewak Mishra Vs. State of M.P. and others
reported as (2017) 4 MPLJ 428, wherein Full Bench has held that even for a
person convicted in a criminal trial, before passing any order of stoppage of
pension, granting opportunity of hearing is mandatory, therefore, it is
contended that without providing opportunity of hearing the order Annex.P/4
could not have been passed.
4. It is further argued by counsel for the petitioner that even if it is taken to be
the correct the law that opportunity of hearing is not acquired to be granted
to a convicted person, even then as per Rule 8(1)(b) of Pension Rules, 1976,
the pension sanctioning authority has discretion to withhold or withdraw
pension or part thereof if the pensioner is convicted after serious crime or is
found guilty of grave misconduct, but withholding 100% pension
permanently cannot be automatic.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has been
convicted of offence under Section 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act
but still the competent authority was under obligation to consider that what is
the exact quantum of pension, which was required to be withheld upon such
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37206
3 WP-28535-2022
conviction because Rule 8(1)(b) is only an enabling provision and does not
mandate withdrawal of 100% pension in each and every case. Therefore, as
maximum sentence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 had not been
awarded to the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents could always have
granted some pension to the petitioner because the Criminal/Sessions Court
while convicting the petitioner did not find the entire offence proved against
the petitioner and did not find the petitioner guilty of the alleged offence to
the fullest, otherwise maximum sentence might have been awarded against
the petitioner.
6. It is further argued that pension is property of the employee and it is with a
purpose of granting subsistence to an employee in his old age. If pension is
stopped at drop of hat without passing any reasoned order, only on the
ground of conviction in criminal case, then it would amount to arbitrary and
irrational order without any reasoning. In other words, it is contended that
the order should contain reasoning that why 100% pension is being stopped.
On these grounds, the order is said to be perverse.
7. Another alternative argument was raised that since criminal appeal is
pending against conviction and the petitioner has been granted suspension of
sentence and appeal is continuation of trial, therefore it has to be inferred that
the petitioner is still an under-trial and therefore, anticipatory pension should
be awarded.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently objected the
petition on the ground that the petitioner has been convicted of serious
offence under Prevention of Corruption Act and therefore, no grounds are
made out to show any sympathy to the petitioner who is found guilty of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37206
4 WP-28535-2022
major misconduct of demand and acceptance of bribe in connection with his
official duties.
9. Heard.
10. Upon hearing learned counsel for rival parties, so far as the question of
grant of opportunity is concerned, the said ground is taken up first. The
judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Sewak Mishra
(supra) has subsequently been held not be a good law by a larger Bench
comprising of five Judges of this Court in case of Lal Sahab Bairagi Vs.
State of M.P. and others reported in (2020) 2 MPLJ 551 . Therefore, the
ground that the petitioner ought to have been given opportunity of hearing,
deserves to be discarded in view of the special Bench judgment of this Court
rendered by five Judges in case of Lal Sahab Bairagi (supra). Learned
counsel for the petitioner has cited a number of judgments passed by
Coordinate Benches and of the Division Benches of this Court, whereby
pension stoppage orders have been quashed relying on the judgment in case
o f Ram Sewak Mishra (supra) . However, all these judgments have been
passed at the time when either the Special 5 Judges Bench had not rendered
the subsequent view or even if these judgments are later to the Special Bench
judgment, then the judgment of Special Bench was not pointed out before the
Coordinate or Division Benches of this Court, therefore, the said judgments
which have been passed without taking into consideration the five Judges
Special Bench judgment of this Court in case of Lal Sahab Bairagi (supra)
cannot be said to be binding president and are per incuriam.
11. The other ground vehemently raised by learned counsel for the petitioner
was that the order needs to be reasoned order. It was contended that Rule
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37206
5 WP-28535-2022
8(1)(b) is only enabling provision and there cannot be automatic stoppage of
100% pension in every case of conviction and therefore, even if the
pensioner is not to be heard, even then the State should pass a reasoned and
speaking order before proceeding to withdraw/withhold 100% pension
permanently because the nature of conviction has to be seen and more so,
when maximum sentence has not been awarded by the Criminal Court.
12. Before proceeding to appreciate the aforesaid contentions, Rule 8 & 9 of
Pension Rules of 1976 are required to be considered which are as under:
8. Pension subject to future good conduct.
(1)(a)Future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every
grant of pension and its continuance under these rules.
(b)The pension sanctioning authority may, by order in writing
withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof, whether
permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted
of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct:
Provided that no such order shall be passed by an authority
subordinate to the authority competent at the time of retirement of
the pensioner, to make an appointment to the post held by him
immediately before his retirement from service:
Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or
withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced
below [the minimum pension as determined by the Government
from time to time] [Substituted by Notification No. B-25-9-96-
PWC-IV, dated 18-6-1996 (w.e.t. 1-1-1986).].
(2)Where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a Court of
law, action under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) shall be taken in the
light of the judgment of the Court relating to such conviction.
(3)In a case not falling under sub-rule (2), if the authority referred
to in sub-rule (1) considers that the pensioner is prima facie guilty
of grave misconduct, it shall before passing an order under sub-
rule (1)-
(a)serve upon the pensioner a notice specifying the action
proposed to be taken against him and the ground on which it is
proposed to be taken and calling upon him to submit, within
fifteen days of the receipt of the notice or such further time not
exceeding fifteen days as may be allowed by the pension
sanctioning authority, such representation as he may wish to make
against the proposal; and
(b)take into consideration the representation, if any, submitted by
the pensioner under clause (a).
(4)Where the authority competent to pass an order under sub-rule
(1) is the Governor, the State Public Service Commission shall be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37206
6 WP-28535-2022
consulted before the order is passed.
(5)An appeal against an order under sub-rule (1); passed by any
authority other than the Governor, shall lie to the Governor and
the Governor shall in consultation with the State Public Service
Commission pass such order on the appeal as he deems fit.
Explanation. - In this rule,-
(a)the expression "serious crime" includes a crime involving an
offence under the Official Secrets Act 1923 (No. 19 of 1923);
(b)the expression "grave misconduct" includes the communication
or disclosure of any secret official code or pass word or any
sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information such as
is mentioned in Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, while
holding office under the government so as to prejudicially affect
the interests of the general public, or the security of the country.
[Note [Inserted by Notification No. FB-6-2(a)-80-R-II-IV, dated
1-1-1981.] - The Provisions of this rule shall also be applicable to
family pension payable under Rules 47 and 48. The authority
competent to make an appointment to the post held by the
deceased Government servant/ pensioner immediately before the
death or retirement from the service, as the case may be, shall be
the competent authority to withhold or withdraw any part of
family pension.]
9. Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension.
(1)The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or
withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for
a specified period, and of ordering recovery from pension of the
whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government if,
in any departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found
guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his
service, including service rendered upon re-employment after
retirement:
Provided that the State Public Service Commission shall be
consulted before any final orders are passed:
Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or
withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced
below [the minimum pension as determined by the Government
from time to time] [Substituted by Notification No. B-25-9-96-
PWC-IV, dated 18-6-1996 (w.e.f. 1-1-1986).];
(2)(a)The departmental proceedings [xxx] [Omitted by
Notification No. FB-25-31-95-PWC-IV, dated 22-12-1995 (w.e.f.
26-1-1996).], if instituted while the Government servant was in
service whether before his retirement or during his re-
employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government
servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be
continued and concluded by the authority by which they were
commenced, in the same manner as if the Government servant had
continued in service:
Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by
an authority subordinate to the Governor, that authority shall
submit a report regarding its findings to the Governor.
(b)The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37206
7 WP-28535-2022
Government servant was in service whether before his retirement
or during his re-employment:-
1. shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor;
2. shall not be in respect of any event which took place more
than four years before such institution; and
3. [shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as
the Government may direct and in accordance with the
procedure applicable to departmental proceedings
: [Substituted by Notification No. FB-6-3-78-N-II-IV, dated
10-11-1978 (w.e.f. 10-11-1978).]
(a)in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in
relation to the Government servant during his service in case it is
proposed to withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof
whether permanently or for a specified period; or
(b)in which an order of recovery from his pay of the whole or part
of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by
negligence or breach of orders could be made in relation to the
Government servant during his service if it is proposed to order
recovery from his pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary
loss caused to the Government].
(3)No judicial proceeding, if not instituted while the Government
servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his
re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action
which arose or in respect of an event which took place, more than
four years before such institution.
(4)In the case of a Government servant who has retired on
attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against
whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or
where departmental proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2),
a provisional pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity as
provided in [Rule 64] [Substituted by Notification No. B-6-1-77-
PWC-IV, dated 26-8-1996 (w.e.f. 1-2-1977).] , as the case may be,
shall be sanctioned:
[Provided that where pension has already been finally sanctioned
to a Government servant prior to institution of departmental
proceedings, the Governor may, by order in writing, withhold,
with effect from the date of institution of such departmental
proceedings fifty per cent of the pension so sanctioned subject
however that the pension payable after such withholding is not
reduced to less than [the minimum pension as determined by the
Government from time to time] [Inserted by Notification No. FB-
6-3-78-N-II-IV dated 10-11-1978 (w.e.f. 10-11-1978)]:
Provided further that where departmental proceedings have been
instituted prior to the 25th October, 1978, the first proviso shall
have effect as it for the words "with effect from the date of
institution of such proceedings" the words "with effect from a date
not later than thirty days from the date aforementioned," had been
substituted:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37206
8 WP-28535-2022
Provided also that-
(a)If the departmental proceedings are not completed within a
period of one year from the date of institution thereof, fifty per
cent of the pension withheld shall stand restored on the expiration
of the aforesaid period of one year;
(b)If the departmental proceedings are not completed within a
period of two years from the date of institution the entire amount
of pension so withheld shall stand restored on the expiration of the
aforesaid period of two years; and
(c)If in the departmental proceedings final order is passed to
withhold or withdraw the pension or any recovery is ordered, the
order shall be deemed to take effect from the date of the institution
of departmental proceedings and the amount, of pension since
withheld shall be adjusted in terms of the final order subject to the
limit specified in sub-rule (5) of Rule 43].
(5)Where the Government decides not to withhold or withdraw
pension but orders recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the
recovery shall not be made at a rate exceeding one-third of the
pension admissible on the date of retirement of a Government
servant.
(6)For the purpose of this rule-
(a)departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on
the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the
Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant
has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such
date; and
(b)judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted-
1. in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the
complaint or report of a police officer, of which the
Magistrate takes cognizance, is made, and
2. in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is
presented in the Court.
13. As per Rule 8, pension is subject to future good conduct and for
withdrawal of pension under Rule 8, the pension sanctioning authority is
competent in cases where there is conviction of pensioner for serious of
crime in criminal case. In the present case, the order has been passed under
Rule 8(1)(b) of the Pension Rule.
14. Counsel for the petitioner had argued that the order has to be reasoned
one because nature of conviction has to been seen by authority. It was argued
that maximum sentence has not been awarded so it has to be inferred that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37206
9 WP-28535-2022
Criminal Court did not find the petitioner guilty of the offence to the fullest.
15. The sentencing considerations are different and awarding of maximum
sentence or lesser than maximum sentence does not depend on the degree to
which the offence has been found proved. It may be consideration in some
cases but generally the sentencing principles depend on various mitigating
and aggravating circumstances upon which sentence to a convicted person is
awarded, which cannot be exhaustively summarized but some of the factors
that are mitigating and aggravating circumstances are as under:
1. parity to similar offences committed by other offenders in similar
circumstances;
2. just punishment for offence;
3. deterrence;
4. community protection;
5. rehabilitation of offender;
6. denunciation of offender or offending conduct;
7. current sentencing practices;
8. whether the crime was motivated by hatred or prejudice;
9. impact of offence on victim;
10. loss, injury or damage resulting from the offence;
11. offender's previous antecedents;
12. consequences of the offence;
13. age of the offender;
14. social status of the offender;
15. social circumstances under which offender lived;
16. the age of victim;
17. proportionality to the gravity of offending behavior.
16. The aforesaid circumstances are some of the circumstances under which
the sentence may be awarded to the offender and it cannot be said that for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37206
10 WP-28535-2022
mere reason that maximum sentence has not been awarded, that the Court did
not find the offence to be proved to the hilt and to the maximum degree.
17. Unless the Criminal Court records the findings to that effect or it can be
discerned from the said judgment that the Court has not found the offence to
be proved to the fullest, nothing can be presumed by this Court. No material
has been placed before this Court to indicate that the Court in its substantive
judgment of conviction has not found the offence to be proved to the fullest.
The petitioner was convicted in his ripe old age, and that may have been one
of the considerations in not awarding maximum sentence.
18. The authority could have been called upon to indicate the reasons for
stopping 100% pension permanently only if it was a case where such
reasonshad been necessary to be given. In the opinion of this Court, as the
petitioner has been convicted for offence under Prevention of Corruption Act
committed during course of official duty, it is the most grievance and serious
offence, so far as the employer is concerned.
19. The discretion has been given to the competent authority because in
every case mechanically pension has not to be stopped. There are cases
where the pensioner may be found guilty in a criminal case under minor
offences like Section 323, 324, 294, 506 IPC between neighbours or there
may be domestic quarrels between brothers leading to minor offences, or
certain offences committed on spur of moment where the outcome may not
have been grievous, or there had been any other circumstances in which the
offence does not lead to presumption of moral turpitude of the offender or
the offence may have been committed not during course of official duties, or
even if committed during course of discharge of official duties, it may not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37206
11 WP-28535-2022
have amounted to moral turpitude.
20. However, the offence of demand and acceptance of bribe is the most
serious crime which a public servant can commit, so far as as his relation
with the employer is concerned. The degree of seriousness of offence
depends upon the relationship between the employer and the pensioner. If the
pensioner is found guilty of having demanded and accepted bribe or
committed any offence under Prevention of Corruption Act during course of
discharge of official duties and he was demanding or accepting bribe in
course of discharge of duties to which he had been placed in a position of
confidence by the employer, then in the opinion of this Court, there can be
no more grave serious crime to justify stoppage of 100% pension
permanently. It is not a crime conducted during course of private activities of
the public servant as a private person in his private life. It is the crime
committed during the course of discharge of official duties and that too, of
demand and acceptance of bribe which has been duly proved before the
Criminal Court after rigorous session trial. Therefore, this Court is not
impressed with the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
authority ought to have given reasons for stoppage of 100% pension
permanently.
21. Therefore, it is held that in case of conviction under Prevention of
Corruption Act, it being the most grievous offence that can be committed by
a public servant during the course of discharge of official duty, no reasons
are required to be given before withdrawing 100% pension permanently. If
the conviction had been before retirement, it would have led to termination
of services in terms of Rule-19 of M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules 1966
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37206
12 WP-28535-2022
and resultant forfeiture of pension. However, in other cases it may be
required to give reasons that how the authority arrived at a particular
quantum and period of stoppage, more particularly in the cases where the
crime is committed by the public servant/pensioner as a private person
connected with his activity in his private life and the consequential offence is
not serious offence.
22. The other argument was raised that the petitioner since has filed appeal
against conviction and he has been granted benefit of bail, therefore, he
should be given anticipatory pension. Said argument is also misplaced
because it is settled in law that criminal appeal is not continuation of trial, as
held by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Ratan Tiwari Vs.
State of M.P. reported in (2002) 5 MPHT 11 .Therefore, the contention that
criminal appeal is continuation of trial and pending appeal it has to be
inferred that the criminal trial is pending, is utterly misconceived argument
being made by the petitioner.
23. Similar view in the matter of stoppage of 100% pension upon conviction
has also been taken by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP
No.18733/2004 (Meghram Vs. State of M.P. and others decided on
22/01/2025) as well as by another Coordinate Bench in WP No.20198/2020
(Sudhir Kumar Hundet Vs. MPMKVVCL decided on 03/01/2024) wherein
the Coordinate Bench has held as under :-
14. The Rule 8(2) enables the authority to exercise power under
Rule 8(1)(b) upon conviction of serious crime in the light of the
Judgment of the criminal court. While doing so, it must consider
whether his conduct which has led to his conviction was such as
warrants the withholding/withdrawing of pension. For that
purpose it will have to peruse then judgment of the criminal court
and consider all the facts and circumstances of the case. This,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:37206
13 WP-28535-2022
however, has to be done by it ex parte and by itself and without
hearing the concerned pensioner rea- son of the exclusionary
effect of the starting words of Rule 8(3) upon exercise of powers
un- per Rule 8(2) of the 1976 Rules.
15. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case
of Tulsiram (supra), which is fully applicable to the present case
as well, the authority must, however, bear in mind that a
conviction on a criminal charge does not automatically entail
withdrawal or withholding of pension. This can be done in the
light of the judgment of the Court relating to such conviction. No
direction for taking action in the judgment of the criminal Court is
necessary or required for taking action under Rule 8(2) of the
Rules of 1976. This authoritative judgment of the Supreme Court
was completely overlooked by the learned Single Bench while
deciding Dau Ram Maheshwar case (supra) on the basis of
decision of Chhattisgarh High Court. The majority view in Ram
Sewak Mishra (supra) wrongly did not apply the decision of Tulsi
Ram Patel (supra) to the Rules of 1976. On the other hand the
earlier Full Bench in Laxmi Narayan HayaranVs. State of M.P.
reported in 2004(4) MPLJ 555 after considering the relevant case
law including Tulsi Ram Patel (supra), correctly held that no prior
hearing is required before passing an order under Rule 8(2) of
1976 Rules consequent upon conviction.
24. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner cannot claim the payment of
provisional pension also during pendency of criminal appeal.
25. Resultantly, petition fails and is dismissed.
26. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek restoration of
pension in case he is acquitted in pending criminal appeal.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
RS
