1. Both these above writ petitions are being decided by this common order as the common question as well as the facts are involved in all these writ petitions. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from Writ Petition No. 8887/2012.

2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the orders dated 24.2.2012 passed by respondent No. 2 thereby withholding the pension of the petitioner permanently by exercising the powers given under Rule 9(1) of the Civil Pension Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1976’).

3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Graduate Trainee on 27.7.1964. He was promoted from time to time to the post of Assistant Engineer, Executive Engineer and Chief Engineer. At the time of retirement, he was promoted to the post of Executive Director of the respondent-Board. The petitioner thereafter retired vide order dated 9.6.1997 on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.1.1998. At the time of retirement no disciplinary action has been initiated or pending against him and he was allowed to draw full pension vide order dated 28.1.1998.

4. M.P. State Electricity Board is a statutory Board constituted under section 5 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 and the Board has adopted the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 in place of Pension Rules, 1951 vide notification dated 3.4.1978.

5. After retirement, the petitioner was drawing full pension for more than 14 years. After nine years of his retirement, on the basis of certain complaints made regarding irregularities in purchase proposal for procurement of energy meters of the year 1997, Lokayukt Police after investigating the matter filed challan against five officers of the Board including the petitioner before the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Jabalpur for committing offence under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 along with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The said case was registered as Criminal Case No. 12/2009. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 15.12.2011 convicted all the five accused including the petitioner and sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively on each count. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner has filed Criminal Appeal No. 82/2012 before this Court and this Court vide order dated 6.1.2012 has suspended the execution of jail sentence until further orders.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid jail sentence awarded by 1st Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Jabalpur and after suspending the jail sentence by this Court, the respondent-Board vide impugned order dated 24.2.2012 by exercising the powers under Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 1976 withheld the pension of the petitioner permanently. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

7. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the entire action of the respondents in withholding the entire pension of the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that the respondent-Board vide notification dated 3.4.1978 while adopting the Pension Rules of 1976 to the employees of Board has substituted the word “Full Board” in rule 9(1) of the Pension Rules, 1976 in place of word “Governor” vide order dated 13.9.2004. The said order has been issued by the order of respondent-Board under the signature of the Additional Secretary. He further submits that the Pension Rules of 1976 have been made by the Legislature by assent of His Excellency the Governor of Madhya Pradesh and only appropriate Legislature is empowered to add, amend and substitute the word replacing the word “Governor” in rule 9(1) of the Pension Rules of 1976 substituting as “Full Board”. The respondent-Board or any other authority e