The court held that the maintainability of an appeal against an order passed under Rule 9(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, must be determined by specifically considering the provisions of that rule before applying other general appeal rules.

ORDER

Per: Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

1. This writ appeal has been filed by the appellants under section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam of 2005 against the orders dated 18/01/2024 & 17/04/2026 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 887/2024 & R.P. No. 303/2024 respectively.

2. It is the contention of the appellants that departmental enquiry was initiated against the respondent while he was in service, but before departmental enquiry could be concluded, he retired from service. The appeal filed by the respondent was turned down on the ground of maintainability. However, learned Single Judge without considering the provision of Rule 9(2) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for brevity, 'Rules of 1976') has held that appeal under Rule 23 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for brevity, 'Rules of 1966') would be maintainable. It is submitted that unless and until provision of Rule 9(2) of Rules of 1976 is interpreted. learned Single Judge should not have proceeded to hold that appeal filed by the respondent was maintainable under Rule 23 of Rules of 1966.

3. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. Learned Single Judge in para 2 of impugned order has come to the conclusion that even if appeal filed by the respondent was not maintainable, still should have considered the same under Rule 23 of Rules of 1966. Rule 9 (2) of Rules of 1976 has not been taken note of. Further more, if learned Single Judge was of the view that appeal was maintainable then it should have remanded the matter back to the competent authority to decide the appeal under the provisions of Rule 23 of Rules of 1966, but even that aspect has also not been taken into consideration. In order to save one chance of appeal i.e. W.A., this Court is not inclined to take up the matter on merit on its own.

6. Accordingly, order dated 18/01/2024 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 887/2024 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge to decide as to whether appeal filed by the respondent against the order passed under Rule 9(2) of Rules of 1976 was appealable or not and shall consider the effect of Rule 9 (2) of Rules of 1976 and pass the orders accordingly.

7. Parties are directed to appear before learned Single Judge on 27/08/2026.

8. Office is directed to list this case before learned Single Judge on 27/08/2026.

9. With the aforesaid observation, this writ appeal is allowed.