RAMADHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/petitioner was working as a Patwari. In a bribe case, he was convicted for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months and RI for 1 year respectively with fine sentences under each count with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently. The judgment and order was passed on 14-9-1998 by the Special Judge, Durg in Special Case No. 2/93. There against, a criminal appeal was preferred by him bearing Cr. A. No. 2210/1998, which is pending for consideration before the High Court. This judgment of conviction was passed after his superannuation on 30-11-1992. After the superannuation, the appellant was getting regular pension. However, on 7-9-2000, the State Government of Madhya Pradesh, exercising its power under Rule 9(1) of the M.P./C.G. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1976") issued an order (Annexure P-5 in the writ petition) withholding the entire pension of the appellant. The said order was challenged by the appellant by filing W.P. No. 2480/2005. It was contended before the Writ Court that no opportunity of hearing or to show cause was issued to the appellant before passing the said order, therefore, the order was in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The Writ Court held that the said order was passed on conviction of the appellant by the Court of law under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Rules, 1976, wherein there is no contemplation of any notice specifying action proposed to be taken or further consideration of the representation and the Government exercising power under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 read with Rule 9(1) of the Rules, 1976 has not erred in passing the said order. The Writ Court, therefore, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/petitioner, has mainly contended that the pension was not a bounty; the appellant had vested right to get his pension; withholding the entire pension, even without giving a show-cause or an opportunity of being heard was improper and unjustified; the Public Service Commission (PSC) was not consulted before passing the order; therefore, the Writ Court ought to have quashed the impugned order dated 7-9-2000 (Annexure P-5) passed by the State Government in the above manner. He cited the decisions of State of Punjab Vs. K.R. Erry and Sobhag Rai Mehta and other connected matter, 1973 AIR(SC) 834and State of Punjab and another Vs. Iqbal Singh, 1976 AIR(SC) 667

(2.) On the other hand, Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, has mainly contended that the said order was passed in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 9(1) of the Rules, 1976, which does not provide for giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee before withholding his entire pension or any part thereof. Thus, the Writ Court has rightly held that it will make no difference if an opportunity of hearing was not granted to the appellant/petitioner.

(3.) We have heard Counsel for the parties.