1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a direction to the respondents to disburse the pension and release the gratuity amount.

2. Facts of the case are that petitioner was initially appointed in the Co-operative Department. Before the date of superannuation on 31.12.2015 he was caught red-handed while accepting bribe on 30.11.2015. Criminal Case No.1/2016 was registered against the petitioner.

3. After retirement his pension papers were prepared by the District Pension officer, Ratlam and sent for payment. Deputy Commissioner, Co-operative vide letter dated 21.1.2016 sought direction from the Commissioner, Cooperative whether the gratuity, GPF, Group Insurance, Family benefit and leave encashment can be released to the petitioner as the final report has not been submitted by the Lokayukt police. Vide letter dated 14.3.2016 it was clarified that since challan has not been filed and it is not a case where departmental enquiry/judicial proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner, hence withholding the amount of pension and other dues is not justified. Thereafter, vide letter dated 7.4.2016, the Treasury Officer requested the Deputy Commissioner, Cooperative for cancellation of PPO as the Commissioner, Co-operative while video conferencing had directed Treasury and Account not to make payment of gratuity and pension to the petitioner, hence the petitioner has filed the present petition.

4. After notice, respondents No.2, 4 and 6 filed the return submitting that challan has been filed by the Lokayukt, Ujjain on 30.4.2016 and under the provisions of rule 64 of M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976 the petitioner is entitled for provisional pension and the Deputy Commissioner, Co-operative, District Ratlam has issued order dated 19.2.2016 whereby the provisional/interim pension of Rs.10,870/- and D.A. Of Rs.13,588/- has been sanctioned to the petitioner and the petitioner has been paid the arrears of provisional pension from January, 2016 to August, 2016 on 20.9.2016. Respondents No.1, 3 and 5 has adopted the return filed by respondents No.2, 4 and 6.

5. Shri Govind Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled for full pension as judicial proceedings have been instituted after his retirement. Under rule 9(4), the judicial proceedings are said to have been instituted only when the final report has been submitted by the Police Officer or the Magistrate has taken cognizance. In the present case at the time of retirement of the petitioner, neither final report was filed nor the Magistrate took cognizance, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for full pension as PPO has already been prepared. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Prahlad Amarchya v. State of M.P. in Writ Petition No.8514/2013 dated 10.3.2016 in which this Court has held that cognizance was taken after retirement of the petitioner, therefore, he is entitled for full pension.

6. Per contra, Shri Rajeev Jain, learned Panel lawyer on behalf of respondents submits that Government servant would be entitled for the provisional pension and 50% of the gratuity from the date of retirement till the conclusion of judicial proceedings passed by the competent authority despite that the judicial proceedings instituted after the retirement.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. In this case the facts are not in dispute that criminal case was registered against the petitioner on 30.11.2015 and he was retired from service on 31.12.2015 and thereafter a final report was filed under section 173 of the CrPC on 30.4.2016. The only ground which has been raised by the petitioner in this case is whether he is entitled for full pension when there was no judicial enquiry pending against him on the date of retirement.

9. Rule 9 provides the right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension. For ready reference rule 9 of M.P. Civil Services Pension Ru