STATE OF M.P Vs. DILIP RAO TAMBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/State have filed present Writ Appeal being aggrieved by order dtd. 16/8/2018 passed in Writ Petition No.2673/2010 whereby order of punishment has been quashed with liberty to pass appropriate order keeping in view the pension rules.

(2.) The Writ Petitioner served with charge-sheet on 18/4/2006, Enquiry Officer submitted a report on 9/1/2018. The Writ Petitioner was served with the enquiry report on 21/1/2008 with a second show cause notice. The Writ Petitioner submitted a reply on 15/2/2008. The Writ Petitioner was given one last increment on 1/1/2009, thereafter he retired from services upon attaining the age of superannuation on 30/9/2009. Vide order dtd. 7/1/2010, the State of Madhya Pradesh in the name of Governor, decided to punish him by reduction of one pay increment and stoppage of next pay increment with the cumulative effect which would result in the non-grant of increment due on 1/1/2009, hence, he would suffer the loss of two increments and pay fixation below two increments, accordingly, vide order dtd. 7/1/2010 he has been imposed punishment of reduction by two pay increments with cumulative effect having a consequential effect in the pension. Being aggrieved by the above punishment the writ petitioner filed the Writ Petition before this High Court.

(3.) The Writ Court has set aside the aforesaid punishment order on the ground that the respondents could have withheld or withdrawn the pension or part thereof whether permanently or for a specified period in order to recover the pecuniary losses caused to the Government. Since in the present case, there is no pecuniary loss caused to the Government, therefore, recovery ordered by the respondents equivalent to the amount due to the reduction of two increments is contrary to Rules 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (Wrongly typed as M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966). The Writ Court has quashed the order and remanded back the matter to the authority to pass appropriate order keeping in view the Pension Rules. Hence, this appeal before this Court.