State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others. vs Arun Kumar Pandey

Appellants/State have filed the present appeal being aggrieved by order dated 21.10.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.

No.8047/2016.

Respondent/petitioner has filed WP No.8047/2016 seeking direction against the appellants/State to release his full pension, gratuity, Group Insurance

Scheme/Family Benefit Fund and leave encashment with interest.

Brief facts of the case is that petitioner was working as Assistant Labour Officer in Rewa. A trap was conducted on 8. 01.2016 against one Om

Prakash Mishra, Labour Inspector. Petitioner was also made accused in the case. Offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the petitioner. Challan in the case was not filed and meanwhile, petitioner attained the age of

superannuation on 31.01.2016 and retired from service. During pendency of writ petition, on 04.05.2016, this Court passed an interim order that if

there is no legal impediment, respondents shall start anticipatory/provisional pension within 30 days. In furtherance to said order, 90% of anticipatory

pension was started, but other benefits like Group Insurance Scheme, gratuity and leave encashment was not settled. Appellants in the writ petition

had admitted that charge-sheet of criminal case has not been filed in the competent Court by Lokayukt.

Learned Single Judge held that judicial proceeding under Rule 9(6)(b) of MP Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 has not been instituted, therefore,

withholding of pension and gratuity is not permissible. Learned Single Judge concluded that Governor has right to withhold or withdraw the pension or

part thereof in the contingencies specified in Rule 9(1) of MP Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. A finding was given that in case of petitioner

contingency is mentioned in Rule 9(4) is not satisfied. Challan after investigation/enquiry by Lokayukt has not been filed before the Court and judicial

proceedings have not been deemed to be instituted on the date of attaining the age of superannuation by the petitioner. It was also held that the

investigation and enquiry made by the Lokayukt would not come within the connotation “judicial proceedings instituted†and “judicial

proceedingâ€. As per definition of judicial proceeding, the cases in which evidence is regularly taken on oath, it is called as judicial proceeding. In

investigation evidence is not recorded on oath, therefore, it was held that stand taken by the State Government in their return was contrary to the spirit

of Rules 9 and 64, therefore, the said stand was repelled. Relying on the judgment of Prahlad Amacharya, learned Single Judge directed payment of

pension and gratuity to the petitioner.

Counsel appearing for the appellants/State argued that challan was complete, but could not be filed as sanction for prosecution from Law

Department was awaited. Only due to technical reason that challan has not been filed, learned Single Judge could not have allowed the writ petition

directing payment of full pension and gratuity etc. to the petitioner. Provisions of Rule 9 and 16 of MP Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 ought to

have been interpreted liberally. As per Rules 9(3) of MP Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, no judicial proceeding, if not instituted while the

Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action

which arose or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution. Rule 9(6)(b) of MP Civil Services (Pension)

Rules, 1976, provides that judicial proceeding in criminal case shall deemed to be instituted when complaint or report of police officer is filed and

Magistrate takes cognizance of it.

In this case, complaint is made on 08.01.2016. Petitioner retired from service on 31.01.2016. Thereafter, challan was not filed by the respondents

before the Court of competent jurisdiction against the petitioner.

Appellants’ counsel argued that in matter of Prahlad Amacharya, learned Single Judge has given a finding that in case petitioner is convicted,

the statutory provision is provided for withholding of pension and respondents will be free to take action in accordance with law. No such opportunity

has been granted to the appellants by the learned Single Jude, therefore, liberty ought to have been granted.

Considered the arguments raised by the Additional Advocate General representing State Government and also the counsel for the respondent, order

passed by learned single Judge dated 21.10.2017 passed in W.P. No.8047/2016 is modified to the extent that State Government may be at liberty to

proceed against the respondent as per statutory provisions provided for withholding of pension if respondent is convicted.

With the aforesaid directions, this writ appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.