Withdrawal of pension for convicted public servants under Rule 8 of the Pension Rules is permissible without a hearing when the conviction involves a serious crime like bribery.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner by way of this petition has challenged the order Annex.P/4 dated 10/10/2022, whereby the pension of the petitioner has been permanently withheld in terms of Rule 8(1)(b) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules (for short referred to as ‘Pension Rules’) on account of his conviction for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working on the post of Reader (Assistant Grade-II) in the office of Collector District Seoni. On allegation that he demanded and accepted certain bribe of Rs.2,000/- in connection with correction of a typographical mistake in an order, he was prosecuted and vide judgment dated 15/12/2021, he has been convicted under the aforesaid provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to 4 years RI with fine and default stipulations. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31/08/2016 and during pendency of trial, he was getting the anticipatory pension upto 30/11/2021 and upon conviction, the order Annex.P/4 has been passed thereby, permanently withdrawing 100% pension.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order withdrawing pension could not have been passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in this regard, reliance is placed on judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Sewak Mishra Vs. State of M.P. and others , (2017) 4 MPLJ 428 , wherein Full Bench has held that even for a person convicted in a criminal trial, before passing any order of stoppage of pension, granting opportunity of hearing is mandatory, therefore, it is contended that without providing opportunity of hearing the order Annex.P/4 could not have been passed.

4. It is further argued by counsel for the petitioner that even if it is taken to be the correct the law that opportunity of hearing is not acquired to be granted to a convicted person, even then as per Rule 8(1)(b) of Pension Rules, 1976, the pension sanctioning authority has discretion to withhold or withdraw pension or part thereof if the pensioner is convicted after serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct, but withholding 100% pension permanently cannot be automatic.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has been convicted of offence under Section 7 and 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act but still the competent authority was under obligation to consider that what is the exact quantum of pension, which was required to be withheld upon such conviction because Rule 8(1)(b) is only an enabling provision and does not mandate withdrawal of 100% pension in each and every case. Therefore, as maximum sentence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 had not been awarded to the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents could always have granted some pension to the petitioner because the Criminal/Sessions Court while convicting the petitioner did not find the entire offence proved against the petitioner and did not find the petitioner guilty of the alleged offence to the fullest, otherwise maximum sentence might have been awarded against the petitioner.

6. It is further argued that pension is property of the employee and it is with a purpose of granting subsistence to an employee in his old age. If pension is stopped a