Back
2010 Supreme(MP) 925
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
R.S.Garg, R.K.Gupta, JJ.
D.D.Jalota - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P.and Ors. - Respondent
Decided On : 16-02-2010
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Rule 9(4)(b) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, if departmental proceedings are not completed within two years from the date of institution, the entire amount of pension withheld shall stand restored in favor of the Government servant.
Headnote:
Pension - Government Servant - M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 - Rule 9(1), 9(2)(a), 9(4) - The court discussed the interpretation and application of Rule 9(1), 9(2)(a), and 9(4) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. The key legal provisions discussed include the Governor's right to withhold or withdraw a pension, the continuation of departmental proceedings after retirement, and the restoration of withheld pension if proceedings are not completed within two years.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired Assistant Engineer, challenged the order withholding 26% of his pension, arguing that it was passed beyond the permissible period after his retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order withholding the pension was illegal as it was passed beyond the two-year limit after the petitioner's retirement, as per Rule 9(4)(b) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of withholding the petitioner's pension beyond the two-year limit after his retirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Rule 9(1), 9(2)(a), and 9(4) to determine the validity of the order withholding the pension and concluded that it was illegal due to being passed beyond the permissible period after the petitioner's retirement.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order withholding the petitioner's pension and ruled that he is entitled to receive full pension as per the law.
R.S. Garg, J.
1. The petitioner who was working as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department was served with a charge-sheet on 3-10-1981, levelling the charges that he committed wrong and thereby caused loss to the State Government. It appears that the enquiry continued up to 30-11-1983 when the petitioner stood retired. Final order awarding the punishment of withholding of 26% of the pension was passed on 5-12-1985. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 5-12-1985 issued in the name of the Governor, the petitioner filed a Misc. Petition No. 1065/1986 in the High Court, which came to be transferred to the State Administrative Tribunal, Bhopal and was registered as Transfer Application No. 1797/1988. The petitioner submitted before the Tribunal that award of the punishment on 5-12-1985 was contrary to law and was absolutely illegal. It was also submitted by him that as per the order has not been passed by the Governor but has been passed in the name of the Governor even without seeking the approval from the Governor, the order was patently illegal. The matter was contested by the State Government but, however, vide judgment dated 23-1-1999 the Division Bench of the Tribunal dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner, thereafter, filed a review before the Tribunal which was registered as M.A. No. 15/1999. After abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal the review petition came to this Court and was registered as MCC No. 2536 of 2003. On 23-6-2005, the review petition was withdrawn with a liberty to file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the legality of the order of the Tribunal. With the said liberty the petitioner has now filed Writ Petition No. 11951/2005 (S).
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after expiry of the period of two years from the date of retirement of the petitioner a final order withholding 26% of the pension payable to the petitioner could not be passed. His submission is that a juxtapose reading of Rule 9(1), 9(2)(a) and 9(4)(b) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short "the Rules") would make it clear that if the proceedings were instituted while the Government servant was in service then the same shall be deemed to be continued under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 and, therefore, such continuation would be the date of institution for purposes of Rule 9(4)(b) and in case the proceedings are not concluded within two years from the date the Government servant becomes a pensioner, the petitioner would be entitled to full pension and the authorities would lose their right to withhold any part of the pension.
3. Shri Jain, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that if the proceedings are deemed to be continued under Rule 9(2)(a), then there would be no limitation and Rule 9(4)(b) would not provide any assistance or solace to the petitioner.
4. We have heard the parties at length and have also gone through the Rules.
5. Rule 9(1), Rule 9(2)(a) and (b) and Rule 9(4) of the Rules read as under:
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(Rs.60/-).
(2)(a) The departmental proceeding referred to in Sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before hi
