Research › Search › Judgment
Madhya Pradesh High Court · body
2025 DIGILAW 82 (MP)
Nausad Qureshi v. State of M. P.
2025-02-04
VIVEK RUSIA
body2025
ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2014, whereby the DIG, Nimar Range, Khargone has dismissed the petitioner from service under rule 9(2) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension), rules, 1976. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under:- Vide order dated 6.10.2012 the petitioner was placed under suspension by Superintendent of Police, Khargone on account of his involvement in the Criminal Case No.133/2013 registered under section 364-A of IPC at P.S. Dahod. Thereafter, the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner and enquiry officer was appointed to conduct an enquir. The charges against the petitioner are as under:- ^^¼1½ vipkjh mi fujh{kd ,uŒ,eŒ dqjs'kh }kjk fnukad 5-10-12 d¨ ekuuh; tsŒ,eŒ,QŒlhŒ U;k;ky; ban©j d¢ çdj.k Øekad 299@01 èkkjk 45] 380 Òknafo esa is'kh fcuk ofj"B vfèkdkjh ls vuqefr çkIr fd, ,oa fcuk lwpuk fn, euetÊ ls j¨tukeps esa jokuxh Mkydj jokuk g¨dj v©j ekuuh; U;k;ky; d¢ le{k is'kh gsrq mifLFkr ugÈ g¨dj ekuuh; U;k;ky; d¢ vkns'k dh vogsyuk dj drZO; fuoZgu d¢ çfr ykijokgh ,oa vuq'kklughurk dk çn'kZu dj iqfyl jsxwys'ku d¢ ikl 64¼2½ ¼3½ ¼4½ dk mYyaÄu djukA ¼2½ vipkjh miŒ fuŒ }kjk fnukad 5-10-12 d¨ fcuk ofj"B vfèkdkjh ls vuqefr çkIr dj euetÊ ls ftyk >kcqvk tkdj vuq'kklughurk djuk ,oa lafnXèk vkpj.k dk çn'kZu djukA ¼3½ vipkjh miŒ fuŒ d¨ fnukad 6-10-12 d¨ fuyafcr dj iqfyl ykÃu [kjx¨u vken nsus dk vkns'k fnukad 7-10-12 d¨ rkfey g¨ tkus d¢ ckn Òh iqfyl ykÃu [kjx¨u esa vken ugÈ nsdj vkns'k dh vogsyuk dj vuq'kklughurk dj iqfyl jsxwys'ku d¢ isjk 64¼4½ dk mYyaÄu djukA ¼4½ vipkj miŒ fuŒ }kjk fnukad 5-10-12 d¨ jokuh Mkydj xSj gkftj g¨us d¢ ckn chekjh lacaèkh jsLV d¢ esMhdy çek.k dj çLrqr djuk fdUrq jsLV dh vofèk esa vius fuokl ij ryk'k dh xà vofèk esa mifLFkr ugÈ jgdj ofj"B vfèkdkjh d¨ chekjh lacaèkh vlR; tkudkjh nsdj lafnXèk vkpj.k dk ,oa vuq'kklughurk dk çn'kZu djukA bl çdkj iqfyl jsxwys'ku d¢ isjk 64¼4½ dk ,oa eŒçŒ flfoy lsok ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e 1965 d¢ fu;e 3¼1½ d¢ ¼,d½¼n¨½ dk mYyaÄu djukA^^ The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge sheet denying the charges. Thereafter the Additional S.P., Khargone was appointed as enquiry officer and Inspector, Police Line, Khargone was appointed as Presenting Officer vide order dated 16.5.2013. During pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.3.2014.
Thereafter the Additional S.P., Khargone was appointed as enquiry officer and Inspector, Police Line, Khargone was appointed as Presenting Officer vide order dated 16.5.2013. During pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.3.2014. In anticipation of retirement on 31.3.2014 his suspension order was revoked vide order dated 27.3.2014. After retirement the enquiry continued and the enquiry officer submitted enquiry report. Copy of the enquiry report was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 19.6.2014. The enquiry officer has found all the four charges proved against the petitioner. Petitioner submitted a reply to the enquiry report and thereafter vide final order dated 27.11.2014 the petitioner has been dismissed from service under rule 9(2) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension), rules, 1976. Hence this petition before this Court. 3. Petitioner is assailing the impugned order inter-alia on the ground that after retirement even if the departmental proceedings continues but under rule 9(2)(a) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension), rules, 1976 the enquiry report is liable to be sent to the Governor with its finding and under rule 9(1) the Governor is the competent authority to pass an order in respect of withholding or withdrawing the pension or part thereof. Therefore, after retirement neither petitioner can be terminated by the respondent-department, nor any pension can be withheld. After retirement the Governor is the competent authority only in respect of passing an order for withholding or withdrawing pension. In support of his contention, Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in WP No.12216/2004 (A.A. Abraham v. State of M.P.) . He has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal reported in AIR 2007 SC 2129 , wherein it has been held that an order of dismissal or removal from service can be passed only when an employee is in service. If a person is not in employment, the question of terminating his services ordinarily would not arise unless there exists a specific rule in that behalf. 4. After notice, the respondents have filed reply by submitting that the provision of rule 9(2) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension), rules, 1976 would not apply to the petitioner as he has retired from service.
4. After notice, the respondents have filed reply by submitting that the provision of rule 9(2) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension), rules, 1976 would not apply to the petitioner as he has retired from service. In reply respondent has not stated under which provision the order of dismissal could have been passed. 5. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the reply by submitting that a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and he was facing trial in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Dahod in Criminal Case No.181/2013, in which he has been acquitted vide judgment dated 25.5.2015. Hindi translated copy of the judgment has been filed along with the rejoinder. After acquittal the petitioner submitted an application for payment of pension but the same has not been considered. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Rule 9(1) & 9(2) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension), rules, 1976 are reproduced below:- "9. Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension .-(1) The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government if, in any departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement: Provided that the State Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed : 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) (a) The departmental proceedings [xxx], if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced, in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service : Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the Governor, that authority shall submit a report regarding its findings to the Governor.
(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 (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings : (a) in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service in case it is proposed to withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof whether permanently or for a specified period; or (b) in which an order of recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service if it is proposed to order recovery from his pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government]." 8. Rule 9(1) says that the Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and also ordering recovery from pension if, in any departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service. Therefore, in view of rule 9(1) if any government employee has been found guilty in a judicial proceeding and any departmental proceeding of a grave misconduct or negligence, the only punishment which can be imposed by the Governor is withholding or withdrawing the pension or part thereof, permanently or for a specified period. Therefore, there is no provision of imposition of punishment of dismissal from service even by the Governor. 9. So far as rule 9(2)(a) is concerned, that only gives right to the disciplinary authority to continue with the departmental proceedings, if instituted while the government servant was in service and after final retirement of the government servant, the enquiry shall be deemed to be a proceedings under this rule and shall continue and concluded by the authority, by which they were commenced, in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service.
As per the proviso, where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the Governor, that authority shall submit a report regarding its findings to the Governor. Therefore, after conclusion of the enquiry, the authority ought to have sent this report to the Governor for passing appropriate order under rule 9(1), instead of passing any order of punishment. 10. Therefore, in view of the above, order of dismissal from service is unsustainable and is hereby set aside. 11. As per rule 9(2) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension), rules, 1976 the authority who initiated the enquiry, is directed to send this enquiry report to the Governor for passing an appropriate order. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.[ 2025 DIGILAW 82 (MP) · digilaw.ai ]