ORDER S. K. SETH, C. J. : – This reference to the Full Bench arises on the following facts.

2. Petitioner was posted as a Chief Municipal Officer, Majholi. He was prosecuted and convicted by the Special Judge (PC Act) for offences punishable under section 409, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and section 13(i)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned trial Judge found him guilty, therefore convicted and sentenced him to undergo period of sentence awarded. Against the conviction and sentence, petitioner preferred a Criminal Appeal and this Court has suspended the jail sentence awarded to the petitioner. After retirement, by order dated 8-8-2016, State Government forfeited pension of the petitioner.

3. Petitioner challenged the order dated 8-8-2016 in this Court and contended that the said order is unsustainable in law as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him before passing the order dated 8-8-2016. In support of the contention, reliance was placed on the full Bench decision in the case of Ram Sewak Mishra vs. State of M. P., reported in 2017(4) M.P.L.J. (F.B.) 428 wherein the majority approved the decision of the learned Single Judge in Dau Ram Maheshwar vs. State of M. P., reported in 2017(1) M.P.L.J. 640.

4. The Division Bench before which the above writ petition came up for hearing, doubted the correctness of the majority view taken in Ram Sewak Mishra (supra) and by order dated 26-11-2019 referred the matter for consideration of the larger Bench. That is how the matter has come up for hearing before us.

5. The following questions have been referred to this Larger Bench : –

“1. Whether in view of the specific exclusion of the procedure for providing hearing incorporated in Rule 8(3) of the Pension Rules of 1976, in respect of the cases falling under Rule 8(2), the same can be insisted upon in the light of the Full Bench decision in the case of Ram Sewak Mishra (supra) ?

2. Whether the Full Bench judgment in the case of Ram Sewak Mishra (supra) deserves to be re-examined and reconsidered in view of the words “in a case not falling under sub-rule (2)” clearly and specifically incorporated in Rule 8(3) of the Pension Rules of 1976 ?

3. Whether the authority is required to issue a show cause notice prior to passing of an order in terms of Rules 8 and 9 of the Pension Rules of 1976, in cases of withdrawal of pension or part thereof on account of conviction in a criminal case?”

6. It is well settled that payment of pension to a pensioner is regulated by the provisions of M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, and that the same has been made statutorily subject to future good conduct of the pensioner. The provisions of Rule 8 of the M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, is reproduced herein below for ready reference : –

“8. Pension subject to future good conduct. – (1) (a) Future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension and its continuance under these rules.

(b) The pension sanctioning authority may, by order in writing withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct :

Provided that no such order shall be passed by an authority subordinate to the authority competent at the time of retirement of the pensioner, to make an appointment to the post held by him immediately before his retirement from service:

Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below (the minimum pension as determined by the Government from time to time).

(2) Where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a Court of law, action under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) shall be taken in the light of the judgment of the Court relating to such conviction.

(3) In a case not falling under sub-rule (2), if the authority referred to in sub-rule (1) considers that the pensioner is p