VISHNU Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the order dated 11. 9. 1998 passed by the Commissioner, Handlooms. Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 31. 3. 1999 and the order dated 30. 5. 2000. By the order dated 11. 9. 1998, a sum of Rs. 25,276. 66 has been ordered to be recovered from the DCRG payable to the petitioner. By order dated 31. 3. 1999, the absence from 7. 9. 1994 to 30. 4. 1996 has been regularised as dies non and by order dated 30. 5. 2000 it was communicated that as the period from 7. 9. 1994 to 30. 4. 1996 has been treated as dies non, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the revised pay-scale w. e. f. 1. 1. 1996.

(2.) RELEVANT facts necessary for the disposal of the case are as under : At the relevant point of time petitioner was holding the post of Senior Inspector (Handlooms ). He was sent on deputation to work as Officer-in-Charge of the Slate and Pencil Co-operative Society Limited, Mandsaur. For certain irregularities committed by the petitioner, a regular departmental enquiry was instituted by issuing the charge-sheet on 17. 8. 1. 994. After enquiry, the show cause notice dated 9. 3. 1998 was issued proposing to recover Rs. 41,940/- as one-third amount of the financial loss (Rs. 1,25,820/-) caused to the society. After getting the reply, by the order impugned dated 11. 9. 1998, Commissioner after adjusting Rs. 50,000/- came to the conclusion that society sustained a loss of Rs. 75,820/- and one-third thereof should be recovered from the petitioner. The one-third amount comes to Rs. 25,276. 66. Against the said punishment order, petitioner preferred a review, which was rejected by order dated 3. 8. 1999. Petitioner retired from the Government service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30. 4. 1996.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the punishment order the pension papers of the petitioner has not been finalised and he is not getting the regular pension. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the enquiry report was not annexed with the show cause notice, therefore, the entire action is bad in law in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that pension includes gratuity and in support of this contention he has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jarnail Singh v. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors. , AIR 1994 SC 1484. He, therefore, contended that (he amount cannot be deducted or withheld without complying with the provisions contained in Rule 9 (2) (a) of the M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1978. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the order dated 31. 3. 1999 was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and the absence from 7. 9. 1994 to 30. 4. 1996 has been treated as dies non. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted the dies non causes a break in service and the past services are forfeited, therefore, the order dated 31. 3. 1999 is bad in law and cannot be sustained. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further criticized the order dated 30. 5. 2000 refusing to extend the benefit of revised pay-scale to the petitioner, which has come into effect from 1. 1. 1996. Lastly it is contended that 'ill date respondents have not finalised the pension case of the petitioner and the petitioner is getting meagre amount as anticipatory pension. After notice respondents have filed their reply and justified the action. The stand taken by the respondents in the reply is that since the recovery has been ordered from the DCRG, therefore, they are not required to comply with the Rule 9 of the M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976.