STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. PURANLAL NAHIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench as well as learned Single Judge of this Court having found difficulty in agreeing with the view taken by another Division Bench of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. R.L. Ogale, 2006 2 MPHT 202. in exercise of powers under Rule 8 of Chapter 4 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules, 2008, have referred the certain questions for consideration by a Larger Bench. The questions referred for consideration in W.A. No. 311/2011 are :-

(2.) Learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants in W.A. No. 311/2011 submitted that interpretation putforth by the Division Bench in R.L. Ogale's case, on Rule 9 (4) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') is not proper. The Division Bench has failed to consider clause (c) of third proviso to Order 9 Rule (4) of the Rules in its proper perspective. It is further submitted that if the provisions of Rule 9(4) of the Rules are read in its entirety, it is axiomatic that the departmental proceedings against the Government servant can continue beyond the period of two years and do not automatically come to an end. It is also submitted that the Disciplinary Authority is not precluded from passing final order in relation to payment of pension in case of delinquent employee against whom disciplinary proceedings are initiated after his retirement which are not concluded within two years from the date of its institution. However, the learned Advocate General fairly submitted that question No. 1 formulated by the Division Bench does not arise for consideration. In support of his submissions, learned Advocate General has made reference to an order dated 25-8-2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 627/2011 as well as order dated 13-5-2011 and 26-8-2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 12105/2011 (s) and W.P. No. 6294/2008 (s).

(3.) On the other hand, Shri D.K. Dixit, learned Counsel for the respondent also fairly submitted that question No. 1 framed by the Division Bench does not arise for consideration in the facts of the case and the decision relied on by the Division Bench of this Court in R.L Ogale's case , lays down the correct proposition of law.