ORDER :

Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking quashment of recovery proceeding dated 12.07.2011 as reflected in the service record of the petitioner filed as Annexure P/6. The petitioner is also aggrieved by withholding 10% of the pension and 60% of gratuity on account of the pendency of the Trial under the provision of the Prevention and Corruption Act (for the sake of the convenience ''PC Act'').

The facts of the case in short are as under:

2. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub Engineer vide order dated 27.10.1975, thereafter he was regularized on the said post on 01.07.1989. From 01.05.1997 to 27.09.2003, the petitioner was posted on deputation at Indore Municipal Corporation in the capacity of Sub Engineer. Vide order dated 27.09.2003, the petitioner was repatriated to his parent department i.e. Water Resources Department. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2011 and accordingly retired from the service. According to the petitioner, the Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt) registered an FIR on 17.01.2011 at Crime No.04/2011 under Section 13(1) E and 13 (2) of the PC Act on account of disproportionate assets accumulated in the form of moveable and immovable property worth of Rs.43-44 lacs against known source of income of Rs. 22 lacs. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed on 07.08.2013. In the exercise of power under Section 9(4) of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (in short '' Pension Rules'') the respondents have withheld 10% of the pension and 60 % gratuity, which is the main grievance of the petitioner by way of this Writ Petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge sheet was filed two years after the retirement from service on 31.12.2011, therefore at the time of retirement, no judicial proceedings were pending against him, thus pension and gratuity were wrongly withheld by respondents. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that under Rule 9 (6) (B) of Pension Rules, the judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, on which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made, therefore at time of retirement no judicial proceedings were instituted against him, therefore provision of Rule 64 the M.P. Pension Rules will not apply. The petitioner is entitled to be released the entire pension and gratuity. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Single Bench as well as the Division Bench of this Court in cases Parmanand Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2004 (IV) MPLJ 201, Aditya Mishra Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2014 (II) MPLJ 59, Ramlal Malviya Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2017 (IV) MPLJ 499, Ramlal Malviya Vs. State of M.P. i.e. Writ Appeal No.243/2017 decided on 05.09.2017, State of M.P. Vs. Prahalad Amarchiya i.e. Writ Appeal No.153/2017 decided on 10.04.2017, Suresh Kumar Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2019 (II) MPLJ 178, Sardar Jorasingh Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2019 SCC Online M.P. 881 and Gulab Chand Jangade Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2019 SCC Online M.P. 6819.

4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that recently the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in the case of Chandramani Vs. State of M.P. 2020 (4) M.P.L.J. 637 has decided as to what would be the correct date of institution of criminal proceedings under Rule 9 of the M.P. Pension Rules and held that the date of institution would be when the complaint or report to the Police Officer is made not the date when the Criminal Court takes cognizance. It is further submitted by the learned Government Advocate that as per Rule 9 (4) of the M.P. Pension Rules, in case of the Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation against whom any judicial proceedings are instituted or continued, the provision of Rule 6