ORDER

1. The present petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs :

“(A) Calling the relevant records along with note sheets pertaining to issuance of show cause notice impugned order dated 27.5.2019 and pertaining dated 26.5.2020 (Annexure P/1) and dated 13.10.2020 (Annexure P/2) and appeal dated 21.8.2020.

(B) Quashing the impugned order dated 26.5.2020 Annexure P/1 and order dated 13.10.2020 (Annexure P/2) as they are illegal, arbitrary and void ab initio; AND

(C) Directing the respondent No.3 to grant full pension regularly after fixation of pay in 7th pay commission with all consequential benefits, including all pensionary benefits i.e. gratuity etc and arrears of dues with 18 percent interest.

(D) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit; also be granted to the petitioner along with costs.”

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.5.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.1 whereby the representations dated 7.6. 2019, 10.6.2019 and 11.7.2019 were considered and rejected and final order dated 13.10.2020 (Annexure P/2) was passed forfeiting the pension of the petitioner permanently purportedly under the provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (in short ‘the Pension Rules’).

3. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed to the post of LDC in the Madhya Pradesh Secretariat in August, 1966 and step up the ladder to the post of Deputy Secretary in December, 2011. He was superannuated from the services after attaining the age of superannuation from the post of Deputy Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh on 31.10.2016. It appears that on the complaint of Smt. Shaifali Tiwari, Jail Superintendent, Indore, case was registered by Special Police Lokayukt, Indore under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ‘the PC Act’) in which after investigation charge-sheet was filed and trial conducted. Special Court, Indore convicted the petitioner for offence under Section 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the PC Act and awarded jail sentence of 4 years’ RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. Allegations against the petitioner were that he visited Indore as Deputy Secretary, Jail Department for grading ACR in Madhya Pradesh PSC and stayed at Hotel Balwas International at the instance of said Jail Superintendent.

4. After conviction recorded by the Special Court vide judgment dated 27.2.2019, a show cause notice was issued by the GAD, Mantralaya, Bhopal on 27.5.2019 to the petitioner under rule 8 of the Pension Rules and solicited reply.

5. Petitioner submitted detailed reply to the show cause notice vide reply dated 7.6.2019, 10.6.2019 and 11.7.2019. After considering replies, impugned order dated 26.5.2020 (Annexure P/1) has been passed. After decision of Cabinet taken on 13.10.2020, petitioner preferred this petition taking exception to both the orders.

6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents did not consider the case in detail and pass the impugned order which is arbitrary and illegal. Petitioner was not convicted for a serious crime or was not found guilty of grave misconduct. It is further submitted that authority to withdraw or withhold the pension lies with the Governor of Madhya Pradesh and to no other authority. Here, without application of mind, decision has been taken by the incompetent authority. No serious crime or grave misconduct has been committed by the petitioner so as to attract such punishment of withdrawal of pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of apex Court in the case of Shanker Dass v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1985 SC 772 and in case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (2013) 12 SCC 210 and seeks parity.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the prayer and contested the case by way of filing reply. It is submitted by learned counsel for