Ajay Kumar Pandvia vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Headnote:(A) Pension Rules, 1976 - Rule 9(1) - Power to withhold or withdraw pension - Conviction in judicial proceedings - Requirement of a reasonable opportunity of hearing - Pension is a right and not a bounty - Any decision causing adverse civil consequences, specifically those affecting the right to livelihood, must be preceded by a reasonable opportunity to be heard, even where the statute does not expressly provide for it (Paras 17-21).

(B) Pension Rules, 1976 - Rule 9(1) - Mandatory consultation with the Public Service Commission - Failure to consult the Public Service Commission before passing final orders to withhold or withdraw pension vitiates the proceedings (Para 23).

(C) Pension Rules, 1976 - Rule 9(1) - Quantum of withholding - Entire pension can be withheld permanently if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct in departmental or judicial proceedings (Para 24).

Facts of the case:
A retired government officer, convicted in judicial proceedings involving grave misconduct and moral turpitude, had his entire pension withheld by the government. The officer challenged the order on the grounds that he was not granted an opportunity for a hearing, the mandatory consultation with the Public Service Commission was not conducted, and the order was issued by the state government rather than the Governor.

Findings of Court:
The court held that while the rules may not expressly mandate a hearing when pension is withheld based on judicial conviction, the principles of natural justice require one because such a decision impacts the pensioner's livelihood and right to life. Moreover, the failure to consult the Public Service Commission as required by the proviso to Rule 9(1) rendered the proceedings legally unsustainable.

Issues: Whether an opportunity of hearing is necessary before withholding pension following a judicial conviction; whether the authority must apply its mind to the gravity of the offense and extenuating circumstances; and whether consultation with the Public Service Commission is mandatory under Rule 9(1).

Ratio Decidendi: Withdrawing or withholding pension causes severe adverse civil consequences and directly relates to the right to life and livelihood. Therefore, the delinquent pensioner must be afforded an opportunity to bring extenuating circumstances to the notice of the authority. Additionally, the statutory requirement to consult the Public Service Commission is mandatory, and non-compliance vitiates the order.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; matter relegated to the competent authority to pass fresh orders after following due process of law and obtaining approval from the Public Service Commission.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Challenge to order withholding entire pension under Rule 9 of Pension Rules 1976 following conviction without hearing or PSC consultation. (Para 2 , 3 )

2. Petitioner argued hearing required and order not by Governor; respondent argued no hearing needed and order valid. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 10 , 11 , 12 )

3. Court held that opportunity of hearing is required despite no express provision, as pension is a right and civil consequences follow. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )

4. Before withholding pension under Rule 9, opportunity of hearing and consultation with PSC are mandatory; full pension can be withheld permanently. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 )

5. Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to competent authority for fresh consideration with PSC consultation within four months. (Para 26 , 27 )

6. Is an opportunity of hearing required before withholding pension under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules when based on a judicial proceeding?

Yes, pension is a right and withholding causes adverse civil consequences; hearing must be given even if the rule does not expressly require it. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )

7. Is consultation with the State Public Service Commission mandatory before passing an order under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules?

Yes, consultation with PSC is mandatory and failure to consult vitiates the proceeding. (Para 23 , 25 )

8. Can the full pension of a retired government servant be withheld permanently under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules?

Yes, the rule permits withholding full pension permanently, as pension includes gratuity and the power is not restricted to partial withholding. (Para 24 )

9. Must the Governor apply his mind to factors like gravity of offence before exercising power under Rule 9?

Yes, the authority must consider gravity of offence, period of punishment, and extenuating circumstances before deciding the extent and duration of withholding. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 )

ORDER :

ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT, J.

This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this Writ Petition;

(ii) That, the order dated 3.4.2014 Annexure P/1 passed by the respondent no.1 may kindly be directed to be quashed.

(iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner. Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub Engineer on 05.03.1984 and subsequently, vide order dated 24.04.1999, the petitioner was declared as Gazetted Officer. Thereafter, on the basis of some false complaint a criminal case was registered against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Section 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner was government employee, the permission under Section 197 of CrPC was not taken before filing of the challan against the petitioner. Therefore, by order dated 06.03.2010, the Special Court has refused to take cognizance of the case for want of requisite permission from the government under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that challan has been filed before Special Judge. Thereafter, petitioner requested for his voluntary retirement and his request was accepted and petitioner was voluntary retired on 05.08.2010. It is submitted that before issuing the impugned order, no consultation was made with the State Public Service Commission. However, it is further submitted that the approval or consultation of the State Public Service Commission is not mandatory for matters relating to pension.

3. The aforesaid powers were exercised under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules 1976 and though the powers under Rule 9 is conferred upon the Governor and not to the State Government, the impugned order was passed in the name of Governor by the State Government. Before passing of the said order, no opportunity of hearing was ever granted to the petitioner, no notice was issued to him, thus the said order has been passed in utter violation of principle of natural justice. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of withholding of 100% of pension, the present petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner had vehemently argued that under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules 1976 the State Government is not having any authority to pass order of withholding pension of a retired employee and it is prerogative of Governor who can exercise such powers, thus, the order which is not issued by the Governor suffers from vice of perversity and, therefore, is liable to be set aside.

5. It was further submitted that the order passed by respondents in exercise of powers of Rule 9 (1) of the Pension Rules 1976 is without following the provisions as contained under Rule 8 of the Pension Rules 1976, which provides for giving an opportunity of hearing to the employee before withdrawing/withholding the pension and since no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, the said order is per se illegal and since it is against the statutory provisions, deserves to be quashed.

6. It was further argued that as per the provisions contained under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules 1976, it is the Governor who reserves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or a part thereof, either permanently or for a specified period, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct, but herein the order has been passed by the State Government in the name of Governor and not by the Governor, therefore, the said order passed invoking the provisions under Rule 9 (1) of the Pension Rules, 1976 is not sustainable.

7. It is further argued that the second proviso appended with the Pension Rules, 1976 provides that where a part of pension is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 548

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT, J.
Ajay Kumar Pandvia – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3562 of 2014
Decided On : 25-02-2026

Withholding pension following conviction requires a reasonable opportunity of hearing to consider extenuating circumstances due to its impact on the right to livelihood. Additionally, consultation with the Public Service Commission is a mandatory statutory requirement under the Pension Rules.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

6. Is an opportunity of hearing required before withholding pension under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules when based on a judicial proceeding?

7. Is consultation with the State Public Service Commission mandatory before passing an order under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules?

8. Can the full pension of a retired government servant be withheld permanently under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules?

9. Must the Governor apply his mind to factors like gravity of offence before exercising power under Rule 9?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 548

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIORANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT, J.Ajay Kumar Pandvia – Petitioner Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh – RespondentWrit Petition No. 3562 of 2014 Decided On : 25-02-2026

Withholding pension following conviction requires a reasonable opportunity of hearing to consider extenuating circumstances due to its impact on the right to livelihood. Additionally, consultation with the Public Service Commission is a mandatory statutory requirement under the Pension Rules.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

6. Is an opportunity of hearing required before withholding pension under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules when based on a judicial proceeding?

7. Is consultation with the State Public Service Commission mandatory before passing an order under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules?

8. Can the full pension of a retired government servant be withheld permanently under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules?

9. Must the Governor apply his mind to factors like gravity of offence before exercising power under Rule 9?

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT, J.
Ajay Kumar Pandvia – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3562 of 2014
Decided On : 25-02-2026