( 1. ) The petitioner before this Court who was a teacher appointed on 7th September, 1956 and attained the age of superannuation with effect from 31 st October, 1997 has filed this present writ petition claiming the pensionary benefits. It has been stated in the writ petition that in the year 1984, the petitioner was falsely implicated in a criminal case under section 302 of IPC, he was convicted by the criminal Court on 2nd November, 1985 and a punishment of life imprisonment was inflicated upon him. The grievance of the petitioner is that while he was facing the criminal trial, subsistence allowance was paid continuously to him and the respondents even after his conviction have continued to pay the subsistence allowance to him till he has attained the age of superannuation on 31 st October, 1997. The petitioner has further stated that the respondents have further paid him the anticipatory pension upto November, 2000 and all of a sudden, they have stopped the payment of anticipatory pension. The petitioner has prayed in this writ petition for payment of regular pension, arrears of pension, gratuity, G.P.F. and other retiral dues. ( 2. ) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have not passed any order as provided under rule 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classficiation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1966) on account of conviction of the petitioner and, therefore, as no order was passed under rule 19, he is entitled for pension in the facts and circumstances of the case.

( 3. ) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that the pension of the petitioner cannot be withheld as he has not been convicted as a pensioner nor he has been found guilty of any grave misconduct in any departmental enquiry proceedings or any j udicial order has been passed restraining the respondent from payment of pension to the petitioner. The learned counsel has relied upon a judgment delivered by the Honble apex Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, OSFC, and others (1999) 3 SCC 666 and his contention is that in the absence of any provision for withholding the pension as held by the Honble Apex Court, the respondent cannot deprive the petitioner of his legitimate right of drawing the pension.

( 4. ) Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a judgment delivered by the Honble apex Court in the case of C.L. Verma v. State of M.P. 1990 JLJ 238=AIR 1990 SC 463, wherein dismissal of an employee after attaining the age of superannuatrion was held to be bad. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of pension of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case.

( 5. ) A detailed reply has beenfiled on behalf of the respondents and it has been admitted in the return that the petitioner was appointed on 7th September, 1956 as a teacher and he continued in service upto 31st October, 1997, i.e. date of the superannuation. The respondents have admitted that the petitioner was convicted for an offence under section 302, IPC, and subsequent to his conviction, he was paid the subsistence allowance upto the year 1997, i.e. till the date of his retirement and even anticipatory pension was paid to him. The respondents have also stated that as per the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, every Government servant is required to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and in case commits a misconduct which is unbecoming of a Government servant, pension can be stopped in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The respondents have further stated that no enquiry was required to be conducted keeping in view the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, in such an eventuality. The respondents have also stated that the petitioner after his conviction was required to be terminated, however, the petitioner managed to get the subsiste