JUDGMENT : Vishal Mishra, J. 1. With consent, heard finally. The present petition has been filed being aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary action or inaction on the part of the respondents, whereby, the respondents have withholding 90% pension of the petitioner and subsequently have stopped the pension of the petitioner completely, after his conviction in a criminal case. It is submitted that the power to withdrawal or withheld the pension is confessed with the Governor of the State and no order could have been passed without the permission of the Governor. The order is wholly without jurisdiction. 2. The petitioner was holding the post of Rural Agricultural Extension Officer (RAEO) and he attained the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years on 30.11.1995. On 28.10.1958, the petitioner was inducted his service as Gram Sevak in the erstwhile Planning Development Department and after bifurcation of the Department the service of the petitioner was merged in the Agriculture Department and later on his designation was known as RAEO. It is submitted that when the petitioner was at the verge of retirement and was posted at Block Aron, District Guna, a false criminal case was registered against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 146, 302, 307 read with Sections 302/149, 307/149 and 323/149 and he was placed under suspension as he has remained under custody more than 48 hrs. During his suspension period the petitioner stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.1995. The respondents started the payment of 90% of pension to the petitioner and paid the same upto January, 2011 and finalization of the pension of the petitioner was kept pending owing to pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner. The criminal case was decided by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sheopur and the petitioner was convicted under Section 302 read with Sec. 149 of IPC vide judgment dated 20.09.1999 for life imprisonment. The criminal case was decided by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sheopur and the petitioner was convicted under Section 302 read with Sec. 149 of IPC vide judgment dated 20.09.1999 for life imprisonment. An appeal was preferred against the judgment of conviction being Criminal Appeal No. 504/1999 and the appeal was finally heard and decided by the Court vide judgment dated 22.04.2009 with analogous hearing with other appeals and this Court has arrived at conclusion that against one of the accused-Manoj the case falls under Section 304(1) of IPC and as far as remaining appellants are concerned, there was no sufficient evidence against them were having common object, therefore, the sentence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC was set aside. As far as the present petitioner is concerned, he has been convicted under Section 323 of IPC. It is argued that after passing of the judgment by this Court on 22.04.2009, the respondents-Authorities have stopped the pension of the petitioner owing to the fact that he has been convicted. 3. It is argued that the law with respect to conviction under minor offences and grant of pension to the Government employee are settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in large number of cases. 4. In the case of Ram Sewak Mishra Vs. State of M.P. And anr. reported in 2017 (4) M.P.L.J 428 by the Full Bench of this Court, wherein question with respect to entitlement of pension to a convict Government employee for minor offences was referred to Full Bench and Full Bench considering the Rule 8(2) of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules (in short as "Pension Rules") and the majority opinion was given in favour of the judgment in the case of Dau Ram Maheshwar Vs. State of M.P. and another reported in 2017(1) MPLJ 640 and it was held that the same has been correctly decided and held that a show cause notice is required to be given to the Retired Government Servant convicted by the criminal Court while finalizing his entitlement with respect to pension. It was observed that after retirement, the petitioner is entitled to pension in view of past services under the State. The employee earns his pension, pension is not a bounty, but the benefits earned by him by serving State for many years. It was observed that after retirement, the petitioner is entitled to pension in view of past services under the State. The employee earns his pension, pension is not a bounty, but the benefits earned by him by serving State for many years. The deprivation of such pension, a means of survival, for whole life, affects civil rights of the pensioner. Though sub Rule (2) of the Rule 8 of the Pension Rules is silent about opportunity of hearing, but neither dispensing with an opportunity of hearing is urgent nor is any other purpose expected to be achieved by denying the benefit of opportunity of hearing. It was further observed that an opportunity of hearing is granted, an employee can point out the mitigating family circumstances, the role in the criminal trial which led to his conviction or other circumstances as to why the pension should not be stopped and that too for life. Therefore, in case of a pensioner, the rule of natural justice would warrant an opportunity of hearing, at least of serving a show cause and elucidating the reply of the pensioner and thereafter, pass and order as may be considered appropriate by the authority so as to enable the appellate authority or the judicial Courts to test the legality of the same while exercising the powers of the judicial review. 5. It is further pointed out that similar view was taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 3310/2011 (Mahima Chand Gangwar Vs. State of M.P.) vide order dated 11.03.2016 and the Court has arrived at conclusion that opportunity of hearing should have been granted by the Authorities prior to passing of the order of stoppage of the complete pension of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the decision taken by the Authorities stopping the complete pension is per se illegal as the same was without issuance of any show cause notice and without granting opportunity of the hearing to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has further reliance upon the judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors vs Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr reported in 2013(12) SCC 210 and in the case of Dr. Hira Lal vs The State of Bihar and ors. reported in 2020(4) SCC 346 . He has prayed for quashment of the impugned order. 6. Hira Lal vs The State of Bihar and ors. reported in 2020(4) SCC 346 . He has prayed for quashment of the impugned order. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State by filing of the return has denied all the contentions made by the petitioner. It is submitted that the grant of pension to an employee is governed by Rule 8 of the Pension Rules which deals with the pension subject to future good conduct. There is no provision in the entire Pension Rules of providing any opportunity of hearing to a convicted employee. The aforesaid aspect was considered by this Court in the case of Dr. Umrao Singh Choudhary Vs. State of M.P. and another reported as (1994) 4 SCC 328 and it was contend that principles of natural justice can be excluded which stands impliedly excluded which is apparent from bare reading of Rule 8. It is contended that sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 contemplates issuing of a prior show cause notice that is in respect of cases of grave misconduct. Since the finding of misconduct is to be recorded for the first time, the opportunity of hearing is contemplated in sub rule (3) of Rule 8 of the Pension Rules. But sub-rule (2) does not contemplate any opportunity of hearing as the order of stoppage of pension is based upon a judgment of competent Court. Therefore, the opportunity of hearing stands excluded by implication when there is prior finding recorded by the competent Court, whereas when an action is being taken for the first time opportunity of hearing is required to be provided. It is argued that the petitioner stood convicted initially for an offences registered under Section 302 of IPC by the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 20.09.1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 5/95. Thereafter, an appeal filed before the Court being Cr. A. No. 489/1999 and Cr. A. No. 504/1999 in analogous hearing, the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 22.04.2009 has modified the conviction of the petitioner and he was acquitted with respect to offence under Section 302 read with Sec. 149 of IPC, and conviction of Section 323 of IPC was maintained. It is submitted that the aforesaid judgments, the trial Courts as well as High Court have concurrently convicted the petitioner under Section 323 of IPC. It is submitted that the aforesaid judgments, the trial Courts as well as High Court have concurrently convicted the petitioner under Section 323 of IPC. The petitioner has contested the case, therefore, no further opportunity of hearing is required to be provided to the petitioner as the facts of the case has already been considered in detail by the learned trial Court as well as by the Division Bench of this Court. In such circumstances, there is no requirement of issuance of any show cause notice to the petitioner. The Authorities have rightly taken a decision for stoppage of the pension of the petitioner as he stood convicted. He has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. The admitted facts in the case are that the petitioner was while in service was charge sheeted for offences under Section 302/149, 323/149 and 148 of IPC and after completion of the trial, he along with other co-accused have been convicted by the trial Court vide its judgment of conviction dated 20.09.1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 5/95 for the aforesaid offences for Life Imprisonment. Thereafter, an appeal has been filed by the petitioner before this Court which was registered as Cr.A No. 504/1999, and this Court vide its judgment dated 22.04.2009 has finally decided the criminal appeal along with another Cr.A. No. 489/1999 arising out of the common judgment and the petitioner has been acquitted for offences under Sections 302 read with Sec. 149 of IPC. However, findings given by the trial Court with respect to conviction under Section 323 of IPC was affirmed. The petitioner was finally convicted under Section 323 of IPC. 9. The pension of Government employee is governed by Rule 8 of the Pension Rules which reads as under:- 8. Pension subject to future good conduct. - (1) (a) Future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension and its continuance under these rules. The petitioner was finally convicted under Section 323 of IPC. 9. The pension of Government employee is governed by Rule 8 of the Pension Rules which reads as under:- 8. Pension subject to future good conduct. - (1) (a) Future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension and its continuance under these rules. (b) The pension sanctioning authority may, by order in writing withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct: Provided that no such order shall be passed by an authority subordinate to the authority competent at the time of retirement of the pensioner, to make an appointment to the post held by him immediately before his retirement from service: Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the minimum pension as determined by the Government from time to time. (2) Where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a court of law, action under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) shall be taken in the light of the judgment of the court relating to such conviction. (3) In a case not falling under sub-rule (2), if the authority referred to in sub-rule (1) considers that the pensioner is prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, it shall before passing an order under sub-rule (1):- (a) serve upon the pensioner a notice specifying the action proposed to be taken against him and the ground on which it is proposed to be taken and calling upon him to submit, within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice or such further time not exceeding fifteen days as may be allowed by the pension sanctioning authority, such representation as he may with to make against the proposal; and (b) take into consideration the representation, if any, submitted by the pensioner under clause (a). (4) where the authority competent to pass an order under sub-rule (1) is the Governor, the State Public Service Commission shall be consulted before the order is passed. (4) where the authority competent to pass an order under sub-rule (1) is the Governor, the State Public Service Commission shall be consulted before the order is passed. (5) An appeal against an order under sub-rule (1), passed by any authority other than the Governor, shall lie to the Governor and the Governor shall in consultation with the State Public Commission pass such order on the appeal as he deems fit. Explanation. - In this rule,- (a) the expression "serious crime" includes a crime involving an offence under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (No. 19 of 1923); (b) the expression 'grave misconduct' includes the communication or disclosure of any secret official code or pass word or any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information such as is mentioned in section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, while holding office under the Government so as to prejudicially affect the interests of the general public or the security of the country. [Note. - The Provisions of this rule shall also be applicable to family pension payable under rule 47 and 48. The authority competent to make an appointment to the post held by the deceased Government servant/pensioner immediately before the death or retirement from the service, as the case may be, shall be the competent authority to withhold or withdraw any part of family pension.]" 10. From perusal of the Pension Rules it is clear that where the Government employee is convicted for a serious offence or serious misconduct then the authorities are having right to take action as per Section 8(1)(b) of these Rules. 11. The controversy involved in the case was considered by the Court in the case of Dau Ram Maheshwar (Supra) and it was held that a show cause notice is required to be given to retire Government Servant convicted by a criminal court prior to taking a decision regarding his entitlement to pension. As there was some contrary view taken in other cases, the matter was referred to the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Sewak Mishra (Supra). Another case was decided by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmi Narayan Hayaran Vs. As there was some contrary view taken in other cases, the matter was referred to the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Sewak Mishra (Supra). Another case was decided by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Laxmi Narayan Hayaran Vs. State of M.P. and another reported in 2004 (4) M.P.L.J 555 and has held as under:- "Rule 19 of the Central CCA Rules was amended in 1987 after the decision in Tulsiram Patel providing for an opportunity of making a representation in regard to the penalty proposed to be imposed. After such amendment, Rule 19 of the Central CCA Rules came up for consideration before a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Sarkar (supra). Having regard to the amended provisions of Rule 19 of the Central CCA Rules, the Supreme Court held that a show-cause notice should be given to the employee in regard to the proposed punishment giving an opportunity to the delinquent employee, to make a representation. The decision did not refer to either Challappan (supra) or Tulsiram Patel (supra). The decision in Sunil Kumar Sarkar (supra) can not, therefore, be said to be a reiteration of the principle in Challappan (supra), which was specifically over ruled by the Supreme Court in Tulsiram Patel (supra). It only exposits Rule 19 as it stands after amendment subsequent to the decision in Tulsiram Patel (supra). The Court neither re-considered the principles laid down in Tulsiram Patel (supra), nor expressed any view contrary to Tulsiram Patel (supra). In fact a three Judge Bench could not re-affirm a view which has been expressly overruled by a Constitution Bench. Therefore, the conclusion in Sheetal Kumar Bandi (supra) that the view expressed in Challappan (supra), though over-ruled in Tulsiram Patel (supra) has been re-affirmed in Sunil Kumar Sarkar (supra) and, therefore, the decision of this Court in Tikaram Windwar v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, M.P. ( 1978 MPLJ 57 ) still holds ground, is wholly erroneous." 12. The majority view of Full Bench has held the case of Dau Ram Maheswar (Supra) has correctly been decided. 13. The similar question again came on consideration before this Court in the case of Mahima Chand Gangwar Vs. The majority view of Full Bench has held the case of Dau Ram Maheswar (Supra) has correctly been decided. 13. The similar question again came on consideration before this Court in the case of Mahima Chand Gangwar Vs. State of M.P. passed in W.P. No. 3310/2011 and this Court has held as under:- "In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, in my opinion, the petitioner cannot be deprived from the benefit of pension and retrial dues because of his conviction under Section 324/34 of IPC. In the aforementioned background, it cannot be said that petitioner was convicted of a serious crime. The respondents have clearly erred in depriving the petitioner from the fruits of the retrial dues. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 12.08.2010 (Annexure-P/10) is set aside. The respondents are directed to pay pension and other retrial dues to the petitioner from the date of his retirement. The respondents will be at liberty to deduct the amount of subsistence allowance and provisional pension which has already been paid to the petitioner after his retirement. The petitioner's pension and retrial dues be calculated and paid to him within three months from the date of production of copy of this order, failing which it will carry 12% interest on the delayed payment till the date of realization." 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar Yadav Vs. Union of India and anr. reported in 1989 Supp (2) SCC 565 has held that "Disbursing Officer has to consider the nature of the offence, the circumstances in which offence might have been committed, the hardship on the dependents or the person etc. The orders in this regard cannot be mechanically issued for the suspension of entire amount of pension. In the case of Rameshwar Yadav (Supra), the employee was convicted was involved in a murder case and was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and awarded imprisonment for life. Under Regulations 119 applicable therein, the competent authority withheld the pension. The Apex Court criticized the order and held that the impugned order does not show that the competent authority applied its mind to the question as to whether the whole or part of pension should be suspended. Thus, out of complete pension of Rs. Under Regulations 119 applicable therein, the competent authority withheld the pension. The Apex Court criticized the order and held that the impugned order does not show that the competent authority applied its mind to the question as to whether the whole or part of pension should be suspended. Thus, out of complete pension of Rs. 108 per mensem, the Apex Court confined the pension to the extent of Rs. 100 per mensem." 15. Further in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Hazarilal reported in (2008) 3 SCC 273 has held that the employee was convicted under Section 323/34 of IPC for assaulting a person. The department by invoking Rule 19 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, terminated his service. The Apex Court held that the employee was not convicted for any act of moral turpitude. He was not punished for any heinous offence. Hence, the punishment of removal from service was held to be disproportionate and the stoppage of full pension amounts to inflicting punishment of financial death sentence. Accordingly, has directed for reconsideration of case to the Authorities. 16. In the present case, the petitioner has finally been convicted under Section 323 of IPC. Admittedly, prior to passing the order of stoppage of pension of the petitioner, no notice was issued to the petitioner by the Authorities and no opportunity of hearing was provided to him, which if granted to the petitioner, the petitioner would be in a position to explain the circumstances regarding his involvement of the criminal offence. The disbursing authorities was required to apply his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and the situation of the petitioner, and thereafter should have taken a final decision with respect to entitlement of petitioner for pension. Even otherwise, conviction under Section 323 of IPC does not fall under the definition of 'moral turpitude'. In such circumstances, the order impugned is clearly bad in law and requires interference by this Court. Accordingly, the impugned order is unsustainable and is hereby quashed. The petitioner is held to be entitled for pension as he was convicted for minor offence only. However, the matter is remanded back to the Authorities to take a final decision with respect to quantum of pension for which petitioner is entitled. Accordingly, the impugned order is unsustainable and is hereby quashed. The petitioner is held to be entitled for pension as he was convicted for minor offence only. However, the matter is remanded back to the Authorities to take a final decision with respect to quantum of pension for which petitioner is entitled. It is seen from the records that the petitioner is senior citizen aged about 76 years at the time of filing of writ petition, now must be 80 years. Therefore, the authorities are expected to consider and decide the case of the petitioner regarding his pension within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. PPO be issued to the petitioner and after calculating the arrears, the same be paid to him within further one month along with interest @ of 6% per annum from the date of retirement till its realization. 17. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed off.