The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Governor has the right to withdraw the pension of a retired government servant if found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service, even if the punishment was not inflicted within two years of superannuation.

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition, whereby penalty for recovery of a sum of Rs.,40,487/- has been ordered from the pension of the petitioner in monthly installments of Rs.1300/- per month in pursuance to the charge sheet issued on 09.12.1993 and the impugned order being passed after superannuation of the petitioner on 30.09.2002. According to the petitioner, the impugned order is in violation of the provisions contained in Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter for short 'Rules').

2. It is petitioner’s contention that when the petitioner was posted as Block Development Officer, Nagaud during 1991, in relation to that work, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner along with other Officers under the similar facts and circumstances. It is further submitted that copy of the charge sheet is Annexure P/2, in which there were allegations that he had forwarded proposals for various works under Jawahar Rozgar Yojna on the basis of the proposals presented by the Sub-Engineers without evaluating justification; this caused a doubt about his integrity. It was also alleged that against the instructions of the Panchayat and Rural Development Department dated 03.05.1989, the petitioner forwarded proposals for getting the work done through Sub-Engineers instead of Gram Panchayat and without there being any noting of the measurements in the Measurement Book, sanctioned the amounts as per the proposals of the Sub- Engineers showing gross dereliction of duty.

3. Petitioner submits that similar charge sheet was issued to one Shri J.P. Kori, Sub-Engineer and he had furnished detailed reply to the charge sheet, but without considering his reply dated 25.01.1995, inquiry was completed and the inquiry report was submitted on 22.08.2005 and 10.03.2006. Vide Order Annexure P/4, copy of this enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner and his comments were sought inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer had found the charges proved against the petitioner, but the petitioner submits that these charges were proved against the petitioner so as to protect SDO Shri S.K. Pal, and when his superior authority SDO has been exonerated, then the petitioner too should have been exonerated from the departmental enquiry treating him to be innocent. He claims parity with Shri S.K. Pal, who has been exonerated from the charges vide Annexure P/6. Vide order Annexure P/6, the State Government noted that Shri S.K. Pal was found lacking in performing the work of supervision of the work of his subordinates under the Jawarhal Rozgar Scheme, but since he was already visited with warning by the Commissioner, Rewa Division, therefore, enquiry was closed against him.

4. In view of such facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing of the impugned order on twin grounds, namely, claiming parity with Shri S.K. Pal and secondly on the ground that no punishment could have been imposed on the petitioner in the year 2009 after 07 years of his attaining the age of superannuation and in addition it is submitted that the petitioner had only forwarded proposal and merely forwarding proposal does not amount to causing financial loss inasmuch as the petitioner was not a Drawing & Disbursement Authority.

5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that this Bench has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide this case inasmuch as the impugned order has been passed at Bhopal. It is further submitted that the order of recovery has been passed after taking concurrence of the M.P. Public Service Commission and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. It is further submitted that the impugned punishment order has been passed after giving opportunity of hearing and conducting a detailed departmental enquiry, in which charges have been found to be proved against the petitioner and, therefore, this Court in writ jurisdiction is not entitled to sit as an appellate authority and thread bare analyze outcome of the de