ORDER :

DEEPAK KHOT, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs :-

i) The Hon. court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner the service benefits such as salary and other benefits for the services rendered by her from 1.12.2017 till her retirement dated 30.6.2021.

ii) To grant any other relief deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d)(ii) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of IPC, consequently sentenced to 4 years R.I. by judgment and sentence dated 30.11.2017 passed in Special S.T.No.9/2016, annexure P- 2. It is further submitted that the petitioner was suspended during the pendency of the trial on 9.11.2016 and the petitioner stood retired on 30.6.2021. It is also submitted that till the retirement of the petitioner, no departmental action has been initiated by the respondent department. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for subsistence allowance with effect from 30.11.2017, i.e. the date of judgment of conviction till her retirement.

3. However, in the memo of petition, the relief has been sought in regard to payment of salary and other benefits for the services rendered by the petitioner from 1.12.2017 till the date of retirement, i.e. 30.6.2021, but before this Court, the petitioner has restricted her prayer to the extent of subsistence allowance, from the date of judgment, i.e. 1.12.2017 till the date of retirement, i.e. 30.6.2021.

4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the reply, the department had submitted that on appeal being filed against the judgment of conviction, the suspension has not been granted and in such eventuality as per clause (b) of the circular dated 8.2.1999 (annexure R/2), issued by the General Administration Department, Government of M.P., a Government employee against whom conviction order has been passed and departmental inquiry has not been initiated, the State is empowered to withhold the pension and no notice is required to be served on such a Government employee. On the basis, has prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is evident from the judgment dated 30.11.2017 passed in Special S.T.No.9/2016, annexure P-2, that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d)(ii) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of IPC. As per clause (a) of the circular dated 8.2.1999, annexure R-2, if any Government servant has been convicted for an offence which is based on moral turpitude, then such Government servant should be terminated. It is further provided that under Rule 19 read with Rule 14 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and Article 311(2)(A) of the Constitution of India, no detail enquiry is contemplated and direct punishment order can be passed.

7. However, in the present case in hand, the respondents have not passed any order of termination. In the reply, it is submitted that the Government is in process of initiating proceedings for termination. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has worked till her retirement in the Government Department on suspension.

8. The Hon. Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandrabhan Tale, reported in AIR 1983 SC 803, has held that subsistence allowance is required to support the civil servant and his family, not only during trial of criminal case started against him but also during pendency of appeal filed before the High Court or the Supreme Court against his conviction. It is further held that any criminal trial of a civil servant under suspension without payment of normal subsistence allowance pa