D D JALOTA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was working as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department was served with a charge-sheet on 3-10-1981, levelling the charges that he committed wrong and thereby caused loss to the State Government. It appears that the enquiry continued upto 30-11-1983 when the petitioner stood retired. Final order awarding the punishment of withholding of 26% of the pension was passed on 5-12-1985. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 5-12-1985 issued in the name of the Governor, the petitioner filed a Misc. Petition No. 1065/1986 in the High Court, which came to be transferred to the State Administrative Tribunal, Bhopal and was registered as Transfer Application No. 1797/1988. The petitioner submitted before the Tribunal that award of the punishment on 5-12-1985 was contrary to law and was absolutely illegal. It was also submitted by him that as per the order has not been passed by the Governor but has been passed in the name of the Governor even without seeking the approval from the Governor, the order was patently illegal. The matter was contested by the State Government but, however, vide judgment dated 23-1-1999 the Division Bench of the Tribunal dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner, thereafter, filed a review before the Tribunal which was registered as M.A. No. 15/1999. After abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal the review petition came to this Court and was registered as MCC No. 2536 of 2003. On 23-6-2005, the review petition was withdrawn with a liberty to file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the legality of the order of the Tribunal. With the said liberty the petitioner has now filed Writ Petition No. 11951/2005 (S).

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that after expiry of the period of two years from the date of retirement of the petitioner a final order withholding 26% of the pension payable to the petitioner could not be passed. His submission is that a juxtapose reading of Rule 9 (1), 9 (2) (a) and 9 (4) (b) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short "the Rules") would make it clear that if the proceedings were instituted while the Government servant was in service then the same shall be deemed to be continued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 and, therefore, such continuation would be the date of institution for purposes of Rule 9 (4) (b) and in case the proceedings are not concluded within two years from the date the Government servant becomes a pensioner, the petitioner would be entitled to full pension and the authorities would lose their right to withhold any part of the pension.

(3.) Shri Jain, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that if the proceedings are deemed to be continued under Rule 9 (2) (a), then there would be no limitation and Rule 9 (4) (b) would not provide any assistance or solace to the petitioner.