JUDGMENT : With consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of the order dated 10-4-2007 as well as a direction to the respondents to pay all the retiral dues to the petitioner alongwith interest. In order to appreciate the petitioner's grievance, the few facts heed mention which are stated Infra. 3. The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Superintending Engineer. On complaint being made by one Ram Manohar Jaiswal to the Special Police Establishment, Office of Lokayukt, a trap was organised, which was conducted on 22-7-1998. Thereupon, the Special Police Establishment registered offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner. The Special Judge by judgment dated 29-8-2001 convicted the petitioner for aforesaid offences. The petitioner superannuated with effect from 31-8-2001. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court before the High Court which has been registered as Criminal Appeal No. 1383/2001. By the order dated 27-9-2001, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been admitted and sentence awarded to the petitioner has been suspended. 4. The Additional Secretary of the respondent/Board by an order dated 22-2-2002 dismissed the petitioner from the service with effect from 28-8-2001 on the ground that the petitioner has been convicted in the criminal case. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application for review under Rule 29 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 hereinafter referred to as "1966 Rules". The application for review submitted by the petitioner was partly allowed by an order dated 26-10-2006 and the order of dismissal was set aside. Thereafter, on the same day, a show-cause notice was issued, by which the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the amount of pension, gratuity and all retiral benefits be not withheld permanently. The petitioner submitted reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice. On consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner the Board vide order dated 10-4-2007 decided to withhold the pension and amount of gratuity permanently. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. The petitioner submitted reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice. On consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner the Board vide order dated 10-4-2007 decided to withhold the pension and amount of gratuity permanently. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner while inviting attention of this Court to the circular dated 4-2-2001 issued by the Board submitted that the respondents were under obligation to hold summary enquiry before passing the impugned order. While referring to Rule 9 (2) (b) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 hereinafter referred to as "1976 Rules", it was urged that the respondents could not institute departmental proceeding against the petitioner as the trap was conducted against the petitioner on 22-7-1998 and the period of four years had already elapsed. Since the respondents cannot initiate the departmental enquiry against the petitioner in view of bar contained in Rule 9 (2) (b) of 1976 Rules, therefore, the impugned order withholding the pension and the amount of gratuity permanently is bad in law and cannot be sustained. 10 support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of State of Bihar and others Vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 56. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order dated 10-4-2007 has been passed under Rule 19 of 1966 Rules as the petitioner was convicted in respect of criminal charges. It is further submitted that Rule 9 of 1976 Rules has no application in facts of the case, as Rule 9 refers to departmental enquiry, which is contemplated under Rule 14 of 1966 Rules. It is further submitted that the circular dated 4-2-2001 itself provides that if an employee is convicted in respect of criminal charge, in such case, no departmental enquiry is necessary and straightway penalty can be imposed. The order which has been impugned in the petition does not suffer from any infirmity. However, it was fairly submitted by learned Counsel for the respondents that in case, the conviction of the petitioner is set aside in appeal, the retiral dues shall be paid to the petitioner. 7. I have considered the respective submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Rule 19 of 1966 Rules reads as under :- "19. 7. I have considered the respective submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Rule 19 of 1966 Rules reads as under :- "19. Special procedure in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 14 to Rule 18 :- (1) 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 (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 the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry 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." 8. The relevant extract of Rule 9 (2) (b) of 1976 Rules reads as under :- "9. Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension.- (1) *** (2) (a)*** *** *** (b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government Servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment:- (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and" 9. From the perusal of Rule 19 of 1966 Rules, it is apparent that the penalty can be imposed on Government servant on the basis of conviction in respect of a criminal charge. From the perusal of the order dated 10-4-2007 (Annexure P-11). It is apparent that the penalty of withholding amount of pension and gratuity permanently has been imposed on the petitioner under Rule 19 of the 1966 Rules. Rule 9 (2) (b) of 1976 Rules refers to departmental proceeding which has to be instituted under Rule 14 of 1966 Rules. Since the respondent-Board has passed impugned order in exercise of powers under Rule 19 of 1966 Rules, therefore, the bar contained in Rule 9 of 1976 Rules does not apply in the facts of the case. Rule 9 (2) (b) of 1976 Rules refers to departmental proceeding which has to be instituted under Rule 14 of 1966 Rules. Since the respondent-Board has passed impugned order in exercise of powers under Rule 19 of 1966 Rules, therefore, the bar contained in Rule 9 of 1976 Rules does not apply in the facts of the case. A careful scrutiny of the circular dated 4-2-2001 particularly para (ka) shows that in case an employee is convicted in respect of a criminal charge, it is not necessary to hold the departmental enquiry and penalty can be imposed on such an employee. Rule 19 of 1966 Rules empowers the Board to impose penalty and in any case summary enquiry as contemplated under the circular has been held as show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after consideration of reply submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order was passed. Therefore, the aforesaid circular is also of no assistance to the petitioner in the facts of the case. The decision on which the reliance has been placed by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also does not apply to the facts of the case as the Supreme Court dealt with a pari materia provision like Rule 9 (2) (b) of 1976 Rules contained in the Bihar Pension Rules. 10. In view of preceding analysis, I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 10-4-2007 passed by the respondent-Board. However, in case the appeal preferred by the petitioner against his conviction is allowed, the respondents would release the retiral benefits to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.