The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the 1966 Rules and the 1976 Rules in the context of imposing penalty based on conviction in a criminal charge, as well as the allowance for imposing penalty without a departmental enquiry in such cases.

With consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of the order dated 10-4-2007 as well as a direction to the respondents to pay all the retiral dues to the petitioner alongwith interest. In order to appreciate the petitioner's grievance, the few facts heed mention which are stated Infra.

3. The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Superintending Engineer. On complaint being made by one Ram Manohar Jaiswal to the Special Police Establishment, Office of Lokayukt, a trap was organised, which was conducted on 22-7-1998. Thereupon, the Special Police Establishment registered offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner. The Special Judge by judgment dated 29-8-2001 convicted the petitioner for aforesaid offences. The petitioner superannuated with effect from 31-8-2001. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court before the High Court which has been registered as Criminal Appeal No. 1383/2001. By the order dated 27-9-2001, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been admitted and sentence awarded to the petitioner has been suspended.

4. The Additional Secretary of the respondent/Board by an order dated 22-2-2002 dismissed the petitioner from the service with effect from 28-8-2001 on the ground that the petitioner has been convicted in the criminal case. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application for review under Rule 29 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 hereinafter referred to as "1966 Rules". The application for review submitted by the petitioner was partly allowed by an order dated 26-10-2006 and the order of dismissal was set aside. Thereafter, on the same day, a show-cause notice was issued, by which the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the amount of pension, gratuity and all retiral benefits be not withheld permanently. The petitioner submitted reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice. On consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner the Board vide order dated 10-4-2007 decided to withhold the pension and amount of gratuity permanently. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court to the circular dated 4-2-2001 issued by the Board submitted that the respondents were under obligation to hold summary enquiry before passing the impugned order. While referring to Rule 9 (2) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 hereinafter referred to as "1976 Rules", it was urged that the respondents could not institute departmental proceeding against the petitioner as the trap was conducted against the petitioner on 22-7-1998 and the period of four years had already elapsed. Since the respondents cannot initiate the departmental enquiry against the petitioner in view of bar contained in Rule 9 (2) (b) of 1976 Rules, therefore, the impugned order withholding the pension and the amount of gratuity permanently is bad in law and cannot be sustained. 10 support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of State of Bihar and others Vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 56.

6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order dated 10-4-2007 has been passed under Rule 19 of 1966 Rules as the petitioner was convicted in respect of criminal charges. It is further submitted that Rule 9 of 1976 Rules has no application in facts of the case, as Rule 9 refers to departmental enquiry, which is contemplated under Rule 14 of 1966 Rules. It is further submitted that the circular dated 4-2-2001 itself provides that if an employee is convicted i