SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(MP) 367

GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
Badelal Pathak – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent


Advocates:
Smt. Anchan Pandey for petitioner; Swapnil Ganguly, Deputy Advocate General for respondents/State.

ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 17.12.2014 passed by Deputy Inspector General, Narmadapuram, M.P. in File No.DIG/HO.KS/PA/PUNISHMENT/625A/2014 by which the services of petitioner have been terminated on the ground of his conviction under sections 7, 13(1)D read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. It the case of petitioner that in light of Rule 64 of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for brevity, ‘Rules, 1976’), petitioner is entitled for provisional pension for the reason that pension is the property of petitioner and which cannot be withheld in light of provisions of Article 300-A of Constitution of India. It is further submitted that non-payment of Gratuity, Leave Allowances, GPF, GIS and other allowances to petitioner is bad. It is further submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Shankar Dass v. Union of India & Another reported in AIR 1985 SC 772, has held that a person should not be dismissed upon his conviction for trivial offence.

3. Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for State. It is submitted that once petitioner has been convicted then there

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top