Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 961 (MP)

B. P. Shrivastava v. State of M. P.

2007-09-03

R.K.GUPTA

body2007
ORDER 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 3rd July, 1996 (Annexure A-22). By this order the respondents have directed to reduce the pension of the petitioner by 5%. This order has been passed by the respondents in exercise of the power vested with them under Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services Pension Rules, 1976. 2. The petitioner retired from the services of the respondents w.e.f. 31.1.1990. Before retirement of the petitioner, a charge-sheet was issued to him on 16.8.1982 (Annexure A-3). A departmental enquiry against the same was continued and ultimately the respondents passed an order on 12.1.1990 (Annexure A) permitting the petitioner to retire w.e.f. 31.1.1990. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30th July, 1991 (Annexure A-20). 3. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it is to be seen whether the respondents would have any authority or right to pass an order after expiry of the period of two years from the date the petitioner retired from the services of the respondents. 4. It is the admitted position that the petitioner retired from the services of the respondents w.e.f. 31.1.1990. The charge-sheet was issued to him at the time when he was in service as it was issued on 16.8.1982 (Annexure A-3) and enquiry against the petitioner was going on and the petitioner meanwhile was permitted to retire from the services of the respondents. The show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30th July, 1991 (Annexure A-20). Ultimately, the impugned order was passed on 3.7.1996 (Annexure P-22). 5. The Division Bench of this Court in State of M.P. and others v. R.L. Ogale and others [ 2006 (3) JLJ 218 = 2006 (1) MPLJ 412 ] (DB), has decided that if any enquiry against an incumbent is initiated before his retirement then the enquiry as such can be continued in pursuance to Rule 9 (2) (a) of Madhya Pradesh Pension Rules, 1976. The Division Bench has further decided that the said enquiry has to be completed by the State Government within a period of two years and in case the enquiry is not completed within a period of two years then the Government shall have no power to impose the penalty of reducing the pension. The Division Bench has further decided that the said enquiry has to be completed by the State Government within a period of two years and in case the enquiry is not completed within a period of two years then the Government shall have no power to impose the penalty of reducing the pension. Thus, in the instant case, the respondents have no right to direct for the reduction in the pension of the petitioner or to effect any recovery. 6. Since the order of punishment by reducing the pension of the petitioner by 5% was passed on 3.7.1996 (Annexure A-22). i.e., much after the period of two years from the date the petitioner retired from the services, therefore, in terms of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in R.L. Ogale (supra), the respondents will not have any right to pass an order dated 3.7.1996 (Annexure A-22) reducing the pension of the petitioner. 7. Under these circumstances, the order dated 3.7.1996 (Annexure A-22) is quashed and full pension of the petitioner is restored. The respondents are directed to pay the amount of pension to the petitioner whatever was deducted from the pension of the petitioner in pursuance of order dated 3.7.1996 (Annexure A-22). The amount as such has to be refunded to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date the petitioner furnishes the certified copy of this order to the respondents. 8. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed to the extent, as above.