ORDER

The appellants/State have filed present Writ Appeal being

3 ^{THE TREASURY OFFICER, DISTRICT TREASURY,}

aggrieved by order dated 16.08.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.2673/2010 whereby order of punishment has been quashed with liberty to pass appropriate order keeping in view the pension rules.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

[2] The Writ Petitioner served with charge-sheet on 18.04.2006, Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 09.01.2018. The Writ Petitioner was served with the enquiry report on 21.01.2008 with a second show cause notice. The Writ Petitioner submitted a reply on 15.02.2008. The Writ Petitioner was given one last increment on

01.01.2009, thereafter he retired from services upon attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2009. Vide order dated 07.01.2010, the State of Madhya Pradesh in the name of Governor, decided to punish him by reduction of one pay increment and stoppage of next pay increment with the cumulative effect which would result in the non-grant of increment due on 01.01.2009, hence, he would suffer the loss of two increments and pay fixation below two increments, accordingly, vide order dated 07.01.2010 he has been imposed punishment of reduction by two pay increments with cumulative effect having a consequential effect in the pension.

Being aggrieved by the above punishment the writ petitioner filed the Writ Petition before this High Court.

[3]The Writ Court has set aside the aforesaid punishment order on the ground that the respondents could have withheld or withdrawn the pension or part thereof whether permanently or for a specified period in order to recover the pecuniary losses caused to the Government. Since in the present case, there is no pecuniary loss caused to the Government, therefore, recovery ordered by the respondents equivalent to the amount due to the reduction of two increments is contrary to Rules 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (Wrongly typed as M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966). The Writ Court has quashed the order and remanded back the matter to the authority to pass appropriate order keeping in view the Pension Rules. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

[4]Since there is a delay of 238 days in filing the Writ Appeal, thus I.A. No.3341/2019 is being filed to condone the delay. The reasons mentioned in the application and there is no objection by the writ petitioner, I.A. No.3341/2019 is allowed. Delay is hereby condoned.

[5]Undisputedly, the Writ Court did not enter into the merits of the case and quashed the punishment order on technical grounds.

[6]The appellant contends that there is a delay in passing the impugned order although the departmental enquiry had been completed before the date of superannuation. Opinion from PHQ was sought for punishing him by the stoppage of one increment and to reduce the pension by one increment in the pay, but the final punishment order could be passed by the State Government on 07.10.2010 with approval in the name of the Governor in conformity with Rule 9 of the Pension Rules.

[7] Rule 9 (1) of t he M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 has rightly been quoted in the impugned order but the name of the Rules has been wrongly typed as M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The appellants are not disputing that the Writ Court has passed the impugned order relying on Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, therefore, the said typing mistake is hereby ignored.

The dates given above are not in dispute. Rule 9 of the M.P.

Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 is reproduced below:-

''9. Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension. - (1) The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from pension of the