After conviction by a Court of competent jurisdiction, no additional notice or opportunity of hearing is required for stopping pension under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules.

Sujoy Paul, J.

This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution takes exception to the order dated 18.8.2010 Annexure P/1 whereby the State Government by invoking Rule 9 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short 'Pension Rules') stopped the entire pension of the petitioner permanently.

2. Brief facts as stated by Shri Parag Chaturvedi are that the petitioner was working as Drug Inspector. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 1985. Since retiral dues have not been paid to the petitioner, he filed OA No.194/89 before the Tribunal. The petitioner has not filed the said order. However, the order passed in MA No.114/97 Annexure P/6 shows that the petitioner filed a review application seeking review of order passed in OA No.194/1989. The review petition was allowed by the Tribunal and the respondents were directed to grant anticipatory pension to the petitioner. The Tribunal made it clear that entitlement of the petitioner to receive the pension in future will remain subject to general conditions stated in the Pension Rules.

3. Shri Chaturvedi submits that the impugned order dated 18.8.2010 Annexure P/1 came as a bolt from blue to the petitioner. Without affording any opportunity of hearing respondents have passed the impugned order whereby complete pension of the petitioner is permanently stopped. Criticising this order, Shri Chaturvedi raised following points:

(i) The impugned order is passed without following the principles of natural justice;

(ii) As per Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, before stopping the pension, the respondents were required to take consent of Public Service Commission which has not been obtained.

(iii) The petitioner was convicted by the Special Court on 28.5.1988. The respondents passed this order after few decades which is totally impermissible.

4. Shri Santosh Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer supported the impugned order. He submits that the petitioner was convicted by Special Court on 28.5.1988. The conduct of the petitioner which led to conviction is very grave and therefore pension of the petitioner is rightly stopped. More so when the judgment of Special Court dated 28.5.1988 was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner by filing Criminal Appeal No.576/88 before the High Court which was dismissed on 29.4.1999 and this judgment of High Court was not disturbed so far conviction part is concerned by the Supreme Court in SLP No.2121/99 (Criminal). The SLP was decided on 15.7.2004. Shri Yadav submits that after decision of the SLP, the matter was examined and a conscious decision was taken by the State Cabinet. While dealing with the second contention of Shri Chaturvedi, it is submitted that the petitioner was holding the post of Drug Inspector which is a non-gazetted post. He was not appointed through Public Service Commission. This aspect was clarified by the Government by issuing circular dated 18.2.1999 Annexure P/1 which shows that the consent of PSC is required only in cases of such government servants who were appointed through PSC. Thus, no fault can be found if approval is not obtained from the PSC. He submits that the factual basis for stopping the pension is not in dispute and; therefore, principles of natural justice were not required to be followed. Lastly, it is submitted that in view of gravity of offence committed by the petitioner and his conviction which is upheld upto Supreme Court, no interference may be made on the ground of delay in issuing the impugned order.

5. Shri Arvind Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that he has a limited role. By the time, the order dated 18.8.2010 was communicated to the bank, the petitioner drew certain amount of regular pension. Beyond 18.8.2010, petitioner had no right to receive the pension. Such payment of pension for want of knowledge of the order dated 18.8.2010, amounts to over payment which can be recovered as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case reporte