The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for authorities to provide an opportunity of hearing to a retired government servant convicted by a criminal court before deciding on pension entitlement, as per Rule 8(2) of the Pension Rules and the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Vishal Mishra, J.

1. With consent, heard finally.

The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary action or inaction on the part of the respondents, whereby, the terminal dues of the petitioner has not been cleared till date.

2. The petitioner was an employee of Education Department and has continued to discharge his duties with utmost sincerity. However, he has been convicted in a false case. He was charge sheeted under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 of IPC and he has faced the Sessions Trial No. 142/1999 which was finally decided vide judgment dated 17.04.2001 and he has been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 324/34 of IPC for Life Imprisonment. Against the judgment of the trial Court, an appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner which was finally heard and decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Cr.A. No. 235/2001 vide judgment dated 09.11.2010 and the Division Bench has confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and has convicted the appellant as directed by the trial Court.

3. It is argued that petitioner was stood retired on 31.12.2007, but he was placed under suspension owing to the false criminal case registered against him. It is submitted that no charge sheet has been filed by the Department against the petitioner and he was continued under suspension till the date of his retirement i.e. 31.12.2007. It is argued that no subsequent action has been taken by the Department in the case of the petitioner and no termination order was passed by the authorities. It is submitted that the respondents have placed the petitioner under suspension for continuance upto the date of superannuation. It is argued that once the petitioner was only suspended and no further action was taken by the Department against the petitioner. In such circumstances, there was no right to the authorities to withhold the retrial benefits of the petitioner without there being permission from the competent Authority i.e. Governor. He has relied upon the rule 9 of the Pension Rules, it is argued that Governor who is having the right to direct for recovery or withholding the pension or the retrial dues. It is further submitted that a similar question was decided by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Sewak Mishra Vs. State of M.P. And anr. reported in 2017 (4) M.P.L.J 428, wherein question with respect to entitlement of pension to a convicted Government employee for minor offences was referred to Full Bench and Full Bench considering the Rule 8(2) of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules (in short as "Pension Rules") and the majority opinion was given in favour of the judgment in the case of Dau Ram Maheshwar Vs. State of M.P. and another reported in 2017(1) MPLJ 640 and it was held that the same has been correctly decided and held that a show cause notice is required to be given to the retired Government Servant convicted by the criminal Court while finalizing his entitlement with respect to pension. It was observed that after retirement, the petitioner is entitled to pension in view of past services under the State. The employee earns his pension, pension is not a bounty, but the benefits earned by him by serving State for many years. The deprivation of such pension, a means of survival, for whole life, affects civil rights of the pensioner. Though sub Rule (2) of the Rule 8 of the Pension Rules is silent about opportunity of hearing, but neither dispensing with an opportunity of hearing is urgent nor is any other purpose expected to be achieved by denying the benefit of opportunity of hearing. It was further observed that an opportunity of hearing is granted, an employee can point out the mitigating family circumstances, the role in the criminal trial which led to his conviction or other circumstances as to why the pension should not be stopped and that too for life. Therefore, in case of a pensioner, the rule of natural justice would warrant an opportunity of hearing, at