Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Urmila Nanawati vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56353
1 WP-11684-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KHOT
ON THE 10th OF NOVEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 11684 of 2021
DR. URMILA NANAWATI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Saleem Rehman - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Namdeo - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State .
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the
following reliefs :-
i) The Hon. court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the
nature of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay to the
petitioner the service benefits such as salary and other benefits for
the services rendered by her from 1.12.2017 till her retirement
dated 30.6.2021.
ii) To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper under the facts
and circumstances of the case.
2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 7,
13(1)(d)(ii) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and
Section 120-B of IPC, consequently sentenced to 4 years R.I. by judgment
and sentence dated 30.11.2017 passed in Special S.T.No.9/2016, annexure P-
2. It is further submitted that the petitioner was suspended during the
pendency of the trial on 9.11.2016 and the petitioner stood retired on
30.6.2021. It is also submitted that till the retirement of the petitioner, no
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56353
2 WP-11684-2021
departmental action has been initiated by the respondent department. Thus,
the petitioner is entitled for subsistence allowance with effect from
30.11.2017, i.e. the date of judgment of conviction till her retirement.
3. However, in the memo of petition, the relief has been sought in
regard to payment of salary and other benefits for the services rendered by
the petitioner from 1.12.2017 till the date of retirement, i.e. 30.6.2021, but
before this Court, the petitioner has restricted her prayer to the extent of
subsistence allowance, from the date of judgment, i.e. 1.12.2017 till the date
of retirement, i.e. 30.6.2021.
4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the
reply, the department had submitted that on appeal being filed against the
judgment of conviction, the suspension has not been granted and in such
eventuality as per clause (b) of the circular dated 8.2.1999 (annexure R/2),
issued by the General Administration Department, Government of M.P., a
Government employee against whom conviction order has been passed and
departmental inquiry has not been initiated, the State is empowered to
withhold the pension and no notice is required to be served on such a
Government employee. On the basis, has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is evident from the judgment dated 30.11.2017 passed in Special
S.T.No.9/2016, annexure P-2, that the petitioner has been convicted for the
offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d)(ii) read with section 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of IPC. As per clause
(a) of the circular dated 8.2.1999, annexure R-2, if any Government servant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56353
3 WP-11684-2021
has been convicted for an offence which is based on moral turpitude, then
such Government servant should be terminated. It is further provided that
under Rule 19 read with Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and Article 311(2)(A) of the Constitution
of India, no detail enquiry is contemplated and direct punishment order can
be passed.
7. However, in the present case in hand, the respondents have not
passed any order of termination. In the reply, it is submitted that the
Government is in process of initiating proceedings for termination. However,
the fact remains that the petitioner has worked till her retirement in the
Government Department on suspension.
8. The Hon. Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs.
Chandrabhan Tale, reported in AIR 1983 SC 803 , has held that subsistence
allowance is required to support the civil servant and his family, not only
during trial of criminal case started against him but also during pendency of
appeal filed before the High Court or the Supreme Court against his
conviction. It is further held that any criminal trial of a civil servant under
suspension without payment of normal subsistence allowance payable to him
under the rule would be violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of
India.
9. In the said case, the delinquent employee has challenged Rule 151
of Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959, which provides for subsistence
allowance of Rs.1/- if the person is convicted under the offence and the said
employee has filed an appeal before the High Court. The Hon. Apex Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56353
4 WP-11684-2021
interpreted Rule 151 and the word 'sentence of imprisonment' and held that
civil servant who has been convicted and sentenced, but has not been sent to
prison and is otherwise free, would not fall under the category of person
sentenced to imprisonment, and thus found that the petitioner therein was
entitled for normal subsistence allowance, and accordingly held that second
proviso to the rule of reduced subsistence allowance is unreasonable and
void.
10. This Court in the case of R.N. Gupta Vs. J.N.K.V. Jabalpur,
reported in 1996 M.P.L.J. 507, has held that mere filing of the appeal against
conviction and sentence does not wash out the effect of Rule 19 of the Rules
of 1966. It is held that an employer or Appropriate Government, as the case
may be, need not wait for taking an action against convicted employee till
the appeal or revision is decided against conviction. However, if the
conviction is set aside subsequently in appeal or otherwise the order of
dismissal will cease to have its effect and the employee would be entitled to
be reinstated and back wages from the date of dismissal till he is properly
dismissed in compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution or relevant
service rules.
11. On the basis of aforesaid enunciation of law, it is clear that mere
filing of the appeal, as in the present case in hand, would not entitle the
petitioner for any benefit. However, from perusal of annexure R-1, i.e. the
order passed in the Criminal Appeal, it is apparent that the appeal is pending
before the court. However, it is also not disputed that the respondent
department has waited till her retirement by not passing any order on the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56353
5 WP-11684-2021
punishment under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1966 allowing her to serve for that
period on the subsistence allowance. However, it is also admitted in the
reply that she has not been paid the subsistence allowance from the date of
conviction till her retirement.
12. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the respondent
Department cannot sit over the matter without being decisive on the point
whether the respondent wants to take departmental action against the
petitioner on she being convicted for the punishable offence. In absence of
such decision, the petitioner is entitled for subsistence allowance till she
worked in the Department. As the respondent has not passed any order of
termination of her service, Rule 24 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1976, would not be applied in regard to forfeiture of her past service.
13. Thus, this court is of the considered opinion that the respondent
has taken work from the petitioner till her retirement as a suspended
employee then she is entitled for subsistence allowance till her retirement
from the date of conviction.
14. With the aforesaid, the respondent is directed to make payment of
subsistence allowance, if not paid to the petitioner, from the date of
conviction till her retirement. The respondent is also at liberty to take
appropriate action under the law in regard and effect to her involvement in
the criminal offence culminated into conviction by the competent court.
15. With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.
(DEEPAK KHOT)
JUDGE
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:56353
6 WP-11684-2021
HS
