Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jamuna Prasad Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55174
1 WP-5710-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 4 th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 5710 of 2025
JAMUNA PRASAD PANDEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Om Prakash Pandey - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Hitendra Singh - Government Advocate for the
Respondents/State.
ORDER
The present Petition has been filed in the matter of stoppage of
Pension.
2. The Petitioner had retired from the post of Assistant Grade III on
31.07.2014. The payment of Pension has been stopped from August, 2019
after conviction of the Petitioner under Sections 466, 467, 468, 471 and 420
of I.P.C. and being sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment.
3. It is the case of Petitioner that the Petitioner had retired on
31.07.2014 while criminal proceedings were pending against him. Therefore,
provisional Pension was sanctioned to him in terms of Rules 64 of M.P.
Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976. The Criminal trial continued and he
ultimately suffered conviction vide judgment dated 29.05.2019 (Annexure P-
3). After suffering conviction, the respondents have simply stopped payment
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55174
2 WP-5710-2025
of anticipatory Pension to the Petitioner. It is further contended that the
aforesaid conviction has been challenged by the Petitioner and the Appeal is
pending before the Sessions Court. It is therefore, prayed that pension being
a property of Petitioner, it could not have been stopped by the respondents
and the Petitioner has a right to draw his pension.
4. Per contra, the State has defended the action in stopping pension on
the anvil of Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules of 1976. It is also contended that
Criminal Appeal is not continuation of trial and also that the Rule 8
empowers the competent authority to stop Pension in case the pensioner is
convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct even
after his retirement which is authorized under Rule 8 (1)(b) of Rules of 1976.
5. Heard.
6. In the present case, the respondents have defended their action of
stoppage of pension of Petitioner on the anvil of Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules
of 1976 which is 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55174
3 WP-5710-2025
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 judgement 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 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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55174
4 WP-5710-2025
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
Government servant was in service whether before his retirement
or during his re-employment :-
(i)shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor;
(ii)shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than
four years before such institution; and
(iii)[ 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].
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55174
5 WP-5710-2025
(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 :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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55174
6 WP-5710-2025
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-
(i)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
(ii)in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is
presented in the Court.
7. The action was vehemently defended with special reference of Rule
8 (1)(b) of Rules of 1976 containing therein that the pension sanctioning
authority is having the power to withhold or withdraw pension or its part in
case of conviction of the Pensioner of a serious crime or he being found
guilty of grave misconduct. However, the aforesaid clause requires the
authority to pass an Order in writing.
8. Passing the Order in writing is especially necessary and important
because there has to be an application of mind by the competent authority
that whether the pension/anticipatory pension is to be stopped fully, or
pension of a specific proportion or percentage has to be stopped or whether
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55174
7 WP-5710-2025
the pension is to be stopped permanently or for some specified period
looking to the conduct of the employee. Therefore, the statute requires
passing of an Order in writing.
9. Earlier, a view was taken by a Full Bench of this Court that even
opportunity of hearing was to be given which was in the case of Ram Sewak
Mishra Vs. State of M.P. and Another reported in 2017 (4) MPLJ 428 .
However, the said judgment has been set aside by a larger Bench in Lal
Sahab Bairagi Vs. State of M.P. and Others reported in 2020 (2) MPLJ 551
and it has been held that the authority is not under obligation to issue a notice
to the Pensioner and principles of natural justice will not be applicable.
10. However, the aforesaid judgment though upholds the competence
and authority of the sanctioning authority to withhold or withdraw pension
but it has to be based upon an Order in writing containing reasons for
quantum of stoppage and the period of stoppage. Stopping Pension without
passing any formal Order is nowhere contemplated in Rule 8 of Rules of
1976. In the present case, undisputedly, no Order in writing stopping pension
has been passed till date and simply upon got information of conviction of
Petitioner, the respondents have stopped paying pension to the Petitioner.
11. Resultantly, the action of the respondents in stopping payment of
anticipatory pension cannot be given a stamp of approval. Therefore, the
Petition is disposed off with the following directions:-
i) The respondents are directed to immediately release anticipatory
pension to the Petitioner in the same manner he was getting prior to August,
2019.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:55174
8 WP-5710-2025
ii) The respondents would be at liberty to pass a reasoned and speaking
Order in terms of Rule-8 in the matter of pension and Gratuity. Upon passing
such an Order, they would be at liberty to execute the said Order and if the
Order is adverse to the Petitioner, then the Petitioner would be at liberty to
challenge the said Order.
iii) If any adverse Order is passed by the respondents, then the said
adverse Order would be made applicable only from date of the said Order
and the Petitioner will get the said Pension till passing of the said Order.
iv) Let the exercise be completed within 45 days of this Order.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
