Withdrawal of pension under the Prevention of Corruption Act post-conviction is permissible without a prior hearing; automatic stoppage of 100% pension for serious crimes is justified under law.

ORDER :

1. The present matters have been filed by the widows of deceased employees, who expired after suffering conviction under Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, and criminal appeal against conviction are pending.

2. In W.P. No.18426/2022, the pension stoppage order is Annexure P-1 dated 21.06.2005, whereby the pension has been stopped payable to deceased husband of the petitioner upon being convicted for offence under Sections 13 (1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentence to five years R.I. with fine and default stipulations as well as under Sections 466 and 120-BI.P.C. He expired during pendency of Criminal Appeal No.59/2002. The petitioner has moved an application for impleading herself in the pending criminal appeal in terms of Section 394(2) of Cr.P.C. The said appeal is still pending.

3. The petitioner in W.P. No.17847/2022 is widow of deceased employee, who was facing trial under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to four years R.I. with fine and with default stipulations. He has been convicted by the Criminal Court vide judgment dated 30.05.2019. The departmental enquiry was also pending against the petitioner and in the Departmental proceedings he has been punished with withholding one increment without cumulative effect and in terms of Rule 8(1)(b) of M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, the entire pension has been withheld permanently which is vide impugned order Annexure P-1. The punishment of withholding one increment is ordered to be executed only if he is acquitted in pending criminal appeal before this Court. The petitioner was granted suspension of sentence in Cr.A. No.4761/2019 and he has expired during the pendency of the appeal and in this case, the petitioner has not filed any application before this Court in terms of Section 394(2) of Cr.P.C.

4. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were working in Government service. On allegation that there was demand and acceptance of certain bribe, they were prosecuted and have been convicted underthe Prevention of Corruption Act. It is the case of the petitioners that thedeceased employees attained the age of superannuation during pendency of trial, and they were getting anticipatory pension upto conviction and upon conviction, impugned orders have been passed, thereby permanently withdrawing 100% pension.

5. 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 impugned could not have been passed.

6. It is further argued by counsel for the petitioner that even if it is taken to be the correct 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, b