[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mandhati Kumhar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 January, 2026
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7425
1 WP-15212-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 27 th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 15212 of 2024
MANDHATI KUMHAR
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gopesh Tiwari - Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Shikha Sharma - Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
This is a petition by the petitioner while praying for the following reliefs:
"(i) This Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to issue a
Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the
Respondents to disburse the of the petitioner in accordance
with law.
(ii) Any other suitable relief deemed fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted
together with the cost of this Petition."
2. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner herein was
convicted for the offences alleged to have been committed by him under Sections
7, 13(1)(b) add 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner
herein assailed the conviction by filing an appeal before this Court in Criminal
Appeal No.3214/2024. This Court vide order dated 18.03.2024 contained in
Annexure P/3, suspended the sentence. After the passing of this order of
suspension of sentence, the respondent withheld the pension of the present
petitioner completely. The action of the respondent is based on the order dated
12.08.2024 contained in Annexure R/1 filed with the return. It is contended by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7425
2 WP-15212-2024
counsel that the order dated 12.08.2024 (Annexure R/1) deserves quashment as
the order could not have been passed without affording due opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner. In support of the contention, counsel has placed reliance on the
decision of the Division Bench in the case of Radha Krishna Sharma v. State of
Madhya Pradesh and others passed in W.A. No.875/2020 vide order dated
03.08.2021. Counsel further contended that the pension of the petitioner is his
fundamental right as his right is protected under Article 300 of the Constitution of
India and therefore, the same cannot be taken away unless there exists some
statutory provision. Counsel has also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and others v. Jitendra Kumar Shrivastava
and another reported in AIR 2013 SC 3383 .
3. Per contra , counsel for the State submits that order dated 12.08.2024 has
been passed in accordance with the law as the petitioner is convicted under the
provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and only the sentence is suspended by
this Court and the appeal against the conviction is still pending.
4. Having considered the submission, a perusal of the record reflects that it
is undisputed that the petitioner has been convicted vide judgment of the Trial
Court dated 29.02.2024 under the aforesaid provisions of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. The appeal against the conviction is still pending consideration
before this Court. In view of the conviction of the petitioner, powers under Rule 8
of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred
to as "Rules of 1976" ) has been invoked and in pursuance of the said exercise of
powers, only the order dated 12.08.2024 contained in Annexure R/1 has been
issued. The order contained in Annexure R/1 is in consonance with Rule 8 of the
Rules of 1976. The pension of the petitioner has been completely withheld by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:7425
3 WP-15212-2024
statutory force, which is available with the respondent under Rule 8 of the Rules
of 1976.
5. The concept of opportunity of hearing is also no more res integra in view
of the decision of Full Bench in Lal Sahab Bairagi Vs. State of M.P., 2019 (IV)
MPJR 172 [Special Bench], wherein the Court held that the principles of natural
justice are specifically and expressly excluded and have no application to the
cases falling under Rule 8(2) of Rules of 1976, in view of the opening words of
Rule 8(3) of the Rules of 1976, therefore, when an action is taken against the
pensioner under Rule 8(2) of the Rules of 1976, no notice is required to be issued
to the pensioner nor can he insists upon prior opportunity of representation on the
strength of the principles of Natural Justice, if he has been convicted in criminal
cases.
6. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that till the
appeal of the petitioner against the conviction is decided and his conviction is set
aside, the petitioner is precluded from questioning the order which has been
passed in terms of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1976.
7. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
vc
