ORDER

1. Petitioner has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2014, whereby the DIG, Nimar Range, Khargone has dismissed the petitioner from service under rule 9(2) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension), rules, 1976.

2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under:-

Vide order dated 6.10.2012 the petitioner was placed under suspension by Superintendent of Police, Khargone on account of his involvement in the Criminal Case No.133/2013 registered under section 364-A of IPC at P.S. Dahod. Thereafter, the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner and enquiry officer was appointed to conduct an enquir. The charges against the petitioner are as under:-

^^¼1½ vipkjh mi fujh{kd ,uŒ,eŒ dqjs'kh }kjk fnukad 5-10-12 d¨ ekuuh; tsŒ,eŒ,QŒlhŒ U;k;ky; ban©j d¢ çdj.k Øekad 299@01 èkkjk 45] 380 Òknafo esa is'kh fcuk ofj"B vfèkdkjh ls vuqefr çkIr fd, ,oa fcuk lwpuk fn, euetÊ ls j¨tukeps esa jokuxh Mkydj jokuk g¨dj v©j ekuuh; U;k;ky; d¢ le{k is'kh gsrq mifLFkr ugÈ g¨dj ekuuh; U;k;ky; d¢ vkns'k dh vogsyuk dj drZO; fuoZgu d¢ çfr ykijokgh ,oa vuq'kklughurk dk çn'kZu dj iqfyl jsxwys'ku d¢ ikl 64¼2½ ¼3½ ¼4½ dk mYyaÄu djukA
¼2½ vipkjh miŒ fuŒ }kjk fnukad 5-10-12 d¨ fcuk ofj"B vfèkdkjh ls vuqefr çkIr dj euetÊ ls ftyk >kcqvk tkdj vuq'kklughurk djuk ,oa lafnXèk vkpj.k dk çn'kZu djukA
¼3½ vipkjh miŒ fuŒ d¨ fnukad 6-10-12 d¨ fuyafcr dj iqfyl ykÃu [kjx¨u vken nsus dk vkns'k fnukad 7-10-12 d¨ rkfey g¨ tkus d¢ ckn Òh iqfyl ykÃu [kjx¨u esa vken ugÈ nsdj vkns'k dh vogsyuk dj vuq'kklughurk dj iqfyl jsxwys'ku d¢ isjk 64¼4½ dk mYyaÄu djukA
¼4½ vipkj miŒ fuŒ }kjk fnukad 5-10-12 d¨ jokuh Mkydj xSj gkftj g¨us d¢ ckn chekjh lacaèkh jsLV d¢ esMhdy çek.k dj çLrqr djuk fdUrq jsLV dh vofèk esa vius fuokl ij ryk'k dh xà vofèk esa mifLFkr ugÈ jgdj ofj"B vfèkdkjh d¨ chekjh lacaèkh vlR; tkudkjh nsdj lafnXèk vkpj.k dk ,oa vuq'kklughurk dk çn'kZu djukA bl çdkj iqfyl jsxwys'ku d¢ isjk 64¼4½ dk ,oa eŒçŒ flfoy lsok ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e 1965 d¢ fu;e 3¼1½ d¢ ¼,d½¼n¨½ dk mYyaÄu djukA^^

The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge sheet denying the charges. Thereafter the Additional S.P., Khargone was appointed as enquiry officer and Inspector, Police Line, Khargone was appointed as Presenting Officer vide order dated 16.5.2013. During pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.3.2014. In anticipation of retirement on 31.3.2014 his suspension order was revoked vide order dated 27.3.2014. After retirement the enquiry continued and the enquiry officer submitted enquiry report. Copy of the enquiry report was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 19.6.2014. The enquiry officer has found all the four charges proved against the petitioner. Petitioner submitted a reply to the enquiry report and thereafter vide final order dated 27.11.2014 the petitioner has been dismissed from service under rule 9(2) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension), rules, 1976. Hence this petition before this Court.

3. Petitioner is assailing the impugned order inter-alia on the ground that after retirement even if the departmental proceedings continues but under rule 9(2)(a) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension), rules, 1976 the enquiry report is liable to be sent to the Governor with its finding and under rule 9(1) the Governor is the competent authority to pass an order in respect of withholding or withdrawing the pension or part thereof. Therefore, after retirement neither petitioner can be terminated by the respondent-department, nor any pension can be withheld. After retirement the Governor is the competent authority only in respect of passing an order for withholding or withdrawing pension. In support of his contention, Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in WP No.12216/2004 (A.A. Abraham v. State of M.P.) . He has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal reported in AIR 2007 SC 2129, wherein it has been held that an order of dism