IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT

th

ON THE 25 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 3562 of 2014 AJAY KUMAR PANDVIA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Alok Katare - Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Smrati Sharma - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.

ORDER 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 Governmen