Judgment ( 1. ) The petitioner before this Court who was a teacher appointed on 7th September, 1956 and attained the age of superannuation with effect from 31 st October, 1997 has filed this present writ petition claiming the pensionary benefits. It has been stated in the writ petition that in the year 1984, the petitioner was falsely implicated in a criminal case under section 302 of IPC, he was convicted by the criminal Court on 2nd November, 1985 and a punishment of life imprisonment was inflicated upon him. The grievance of the petitioner is that while he was facing the criminal trial, subsistence allowance was paid continuously to him and the respondents even after his conviction have continued to pay the subsistence allowance to him till he has attained the age of superannuation on 31 st October, 1997. The petitioner has further stated that the respondents have further paid him the anticipatory pension upto November, 2000 and all of a sudden, they have stopped the payment of anticipatory pension. The petitioner has prayed in this writ petition for payment of regular pension, arrears of pension, gratuity, G.P.F. and other retiral dues. ( 2. ) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have not passed any order as provided under rule 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classficiation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1966) on account of conviction of the petitioner and, therefore, as no order was passed under rule 19, he is entitled for pension in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 3. ) The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that the pension of the petitioner cannot be withheld as he has not been convicted as a pensioner nor he has been found guilty of any grave misconduct in any departmental enquiry proceedings or any j udicial order has been passed restraining the respondent from payment of pension to the petitioner. The learned counsel has relied upon a judgment delivered by the Honble apex Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, OSFC, and others (1999) 3 SCC 666 and his contention is that in the absence of any provision for withholding the pension as held by the Honble Apex Court, the respondent cannot deprive the petitioner of his legitimate right of drawing the pension. ( 4. ) Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a judgment delivered by the Honble apex Court in the case of C.L. Verma v. State of M.P. 1990 JLJ 238= AIR 1990 SC 463 , wherein dismissal of an employee after attaining the age of superannuatrion was held to be bad. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of pension of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 5. ) A detailed reply has beenfiled on behalf of the respondents and it has been admitted in the return that the petitioner was appointed on 7th September, 1956 as a teacher and he continued in service upto 31st October, 1997, i.e. date of the superannuation. The respondents have admitted that the petitioner was convicted for an offence under section 302, IPC, and subsequent to his conviction, he was paid the subsistence allowance upto the year 1997, i.e. till the date of his retirement and even anticipatory pension was paid to him. The respondents have also stated that as per the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, every Government servant is required to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and in case commits a misconduct which is unbecoming of a Government servant, pension can be stopped in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The respondents have further stated that no enquiry was required to be conducted keeping in view the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, in such an eventuality. The respondents have also stated that the petitioner after his conviction was required to be terminated, however, the petitioner managed to get the subsistence allowance upto his retirement and also received the provisional pension. ( 6. ) The contention of the respondents is that as per the provisions of the rule 8 of the Madhya Pradehsh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, the petitioner is not entitled for the pension and an amount of Rs. 1,90,636/- has wrongly been paid to the petitioner and this fact was brought to the notice of the District Education Officer, Bhind by the Joint Director (Finance), Public Instructions, Bhopal vide letter dated 24th August, 2006 to clarify the issue regarding payment of pension in respect of the petitioner. The respondents have also stated that the petitioner is a convict and the pension was erroneously paid to him. The respondents have also stated that the petitioner is a convict and the pension was erroneously paid to him. ( 7. ) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 8. ) The present case reflect a very sorry state of affairs in which the Education department, State of Madhya Pradesh is functioning. The petitioner, Government servant was convicted for a heinous offence under section 302 of IPC and during trial, he was paid the subsistence allowance. It is really unfortunate that after his conviction also, the respondents have continued to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner. The petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31 st October, 1997 and the respondent have granted the anticipatory pension to the petitioner and paid the same upto October, 2000. A sum of Rs. 1,90,636/- has been paid to the petitioner knowing fully well that he has been convicted under section 302 of IPC, In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was convicted on 13th July, 1994 and he was inflicted upon a sentence of life imprisonment. The petitioner while undergoing the sentence of life imprisonment has also been paid the subsistence allowance/pension by the respondents. ( 9. ) The provisions of rule 19 of the Rules, 1966 reads as under: "Special procedure in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 14 to rule 18- (i) Where any penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge, or (ii) where the disciplinary authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules, or iii) where the Governor is satisfied that in the interest of security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an enquiry in the manner provided in these rules, the disciplinary authority may consider the circumstances of the case and make such orders thereon as it deems fit; Provided that the Commission shall be consulted where such consultation is necessary, before any orders are made in any case under this rule. ( 10. ( 10. ) The competent disciplinary authority was required to pass the appropriate orders keeping in view the petitioners conviction for a heinous offence under section 302 of IPC, however, no such order was passed by the competent authority for the reason best known to the disciplinary authorit and the petitioner was permitted to continue in service and has attained the age of superannuation with effect from 31st October, 1997. In the present case it is further not in dispute that the petitioner was paid the subsistence allowance even while undergoing the jail sentence and the anticipator pension was paid to him till October, 2000 by the respondent. The respondents have not brought notice of this Court any order passed by the competent disciplinary authority as per the provisions of rule 19 of the Rules, 1966 no any order has been passed under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 withholding the pension of the petitioner. In fact, only a show cause notice has been annexed with the return by which a clarification was sought from the District Education Officer, Bhind as to how the petitioner was paid the subsistence allowance after his conviction and as to how the anticipatory pension was paid to the petitioner after his retirement till October, 2000 in spite of the fact that the petitioner was convictede under section 302 of IPC. ( 11. ) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment delivered by the Honble apex Court in the case of C.L. Verma (supra) wherein the Honble apex Court has held the order of dismissal in respect of an employe) passed by the employer after attaining the age of superannuation is bad in law. In the present case, no such controversy is involved. In fact, no orde has been passed by the respondents in the matter and, therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel in the case of C.L. Verma (supra) is no applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ( 12. ) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment delivered by the Honble apex Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena (supra) where in the issue was regarding continuance of the departmental enquiry after retirement in absence of any statutory provision. ( 12. ) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment delivered by the Honble apex Court in the case of Bhagirathi Jena (supra) where in the issue was regarding continuance of the departmental enquiry after retirement in absence of any statutory provision. In the present case, no such departmental enquiry is pending and, therefore, again the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable. ( 13. ) The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a judgment delivered by a division Bench of this Court in the case of M.P. Stan Warehousing Corporation v. Govardhanlal Choudaha and another, 2000 (II) MPWN 60=2000 (3) MPHT 133 wherein also again the issue was continuance of the departmental enquirty after retirement. In the present case no departmenatl enuquiry is continuing or initiated and, therefore, the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable. ( 14. ) The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. and others v. T.N. Verma and another, 2001 (1) MPHT 118 . In the aforesaid case, an order passed by the then Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court quashing the departmental enquiry on the ground that no sanction of the Governor was obtained in the matter. In the present case, no order has been passed by the State Government and, therefore, the question of granting sanction the Governor in respect of payment of pensionary benefit does not arise in the matter. Hence, this case is again distinguishable. ( 15. ) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment delivered by a division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. and others v. T.N. Verma and another, 2000 (4) MPHT 65 (NOC) wherein it has been held that a departmental enquiry cannot be continued after attaining the age of superannuation. In the present case, no such situation is involved and, therefore, the judgment is distinguishable on facts. ( 16. In the present case, no such situation is involved and, therefore, the judgment is distinguishable on facts. ( 16. ) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Krishanlal (Dr.) v. State of M.P. and others, 2009 (II) MPJR 139 wherein a charge sheet was issued on 15th October, 1987 and the punishment of withholding 30 percent pension was imposed on 15th February, 2002 i.e. after five years of retirement on 30th April, 1997. In the present case, no charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner, no punishment order has been passed and no order withholding the pension has been passed by the State Government and, therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is again distinguishable on facts. ( 17. ) Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon another division Bench judgment in the case of State of M.P and another v. R.L. Ogale and others, 2006 (3) JLJ 218 = 2006 (1) MPLJ 412 wherein this Court has held that where no order has been passed within the period of limitation provided under rule 9 of the Rules of 1976 after the institution of the departmental enquiry proceedings, the pension has to be restored. In the present case, in fact, no enquiry has been initiated either under the provisions of the Rules, 1966 or under the Rules, 1976 and, therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is again distinguishable. ( 18. ) Learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly relied upon a judgment delivered by the Honble apex Court in the case of C AIR 1996 SC 1656 wherein a charge sheet was issued to an employee after retirement relating to embezzlement, however, the same was not instituted within the prescribed peried of four years. Keeping in view the statutory provisions, the Honble apex Court has held that the departmental enquiry proceedings cannot be continued. In the present case, no such contingency is involved and no departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner and, therefore, the judgment is again distinguishable on facts. ( 19. ) The present is a case where the respondent have not passed any order either under Rules, 1966 or under the Rules, 1976, keeping in view| the conviction of the petitioner under section 302 of IPC. ( 20. ( 19. ) The present is a case where the respondent have not passed any order either under Rules, 1966 or under the Rules, 1976, keeping in view| the conviction of the petitioner under section 302 of IPC. ( 20. ) Resultantly, the petition is disposed of with the following directions: (a) The respondents are directed to pass the appropriate orders in respect of the claim of the petitioner keeping in view the conviction of the petitioner by a judgment dated 2nd Novermber, 1985 by which he has been convicted by imposing the punishment of life imprisonment, (b) The respondent No. 1 and 2 shall conduct an enquiry into the matter as to why the petitioner was paid the subsistence allowance even after his conviction and as to why the anticipatory pension was paid to the petitioner after his conviction, i.e. while he was undergoing the life imprisonment upto October, 2000. (c) The aforesaid exercise shall be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order; (d) After concluding the departmental enquiry into the matter, the respondents shall fix the responsibility for payments made to the petitioner upon the officer who has ignored the statutory provisions of the Rules, 1966 and the Rules, 1976, (e) The respondents shall also be free to recover the amount of subsistence allowance and the anticipatory pension paid to the petitioner from the erring officer. (f) The aforesaid exercise of passing an order fixing the responsibility and recovery of the amount from the erring official shall be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, With the aforesaid, writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.