Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1307 (MP)

AHMAD HUSSAIN v. STATE OF M. P.

2009-11-25

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2009
Judgment Shantanu Kemkar, J. ( 1. ) Petitioner was working on the post of Chief Warder in the Jail Department of the Government of M.P. On the basis of incident dated 03.03.2008 a charge-sheet was issued to hirn on 24.03.2008 levelling as many as 3 charges. A departmental enquiry was conducted for the charges levelled against him in which he was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer. Before the order of penalty could be passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner was retired on 31.05.2008. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 01.07.2008 (AnnexureP-1) inflicted upon the petitioner penalty under Rule 10 (iv) of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short the MPCCA Rules) of reduction of his pension permanently to the extent of 1% with cumulative effect. Aggrieved, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 22.10.2008 (AnnexureP-2) dismissed the said appeal. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed this petition. ( 2. ) According to the petitioner imposition of penalty of reduction in pension by 1% with cumulative effect invoking Rule 10 (iv) of the MPCCA Rules is illegal and without jurisdiction. According to him, there is no provision of reduction of pension under Clause (iv) of Rule 10 of the MPCCA Rules and such a penalty could not have been imposed upon the petitioner. ( 3. ) The respondents have submitted reply and have justified the action by contending that since the petitioner was held guilty in a departmental enquiry conducted against him, the impugned order of penalty has been passed which is permissible under Rule 10 (iv) of the MPCCA Rules. ( 4. ) Heard learned counsel for the parties. ( 5. ) Admittedly, before the order of penalty could be passed the petitioner was already retired w.e.f31.05.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation. Rule 10 of the MPCCA Rules provides for minor penalties. Clause (iv) of Rule 10 provides for penalty of "withholding of increments of pay or stagnation allowance." In the circumstances, the respondents by invoking Rule 10 (iv) could not have passed the order of penalty of withholding of petitioners pension to the extent of 1% with cumulative effect. The said order of penalty does not fall within the minor penalty provided in Rule 10 (iv) of the MPCCA Rules. The said order of penalty does not fall within the minor penalty provided in Rule 10 (iv) of the MPCCA Rules. If the petitioner was already retired the respondent could have taken recourse of Rule 9 of the M.P.Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 but in no circumstances the order of penalty of withholding of pension by invoking Rule 10 (iv) could have been passed. ( 6. ) In the circumstances, the impugned Order dated 01.07.2008 (Annexure P-l) and the appellate order dated 22.10.2008 (Annexure P-2) are liable to be and are hereby quashed. Consequently, the respondents are directed to restore the petitioners pension as per his entitlement and refund him the pension recovered so far from him within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the petitioner shall be entitled for refund of it with interest @ 9% per annum. Order accordingly.