NAUSAD QURESHI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dtd. 27/11/2014, whereby the DIG, Nimar Range, Khargone has dismissed the petitioner from service under Rule 9(2) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension), Rules, 1976.

(2.) Facts of the case, in short, are as under:- Vide order dtd. 6/10/2012 the petitioner was placed under suspension by Superintendent of Police, Khargone on account of his involvement in the Criminal Case No.133/2013 registered under Sec. 364-A of IPC at P.S. Dahod. Thereafter, the charge sheet was served upon the petitioner and enquiry officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry. The charges against the petitioner are as under:- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_25_LAWS(MPH)2_2025_1.jpg</IMG> The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge sheet denying the charges. Thereafter the Additional S.P., Khargone was appointed as enquiry officer and Inspector, Police Line, Khargone was appointed as Presenting Officer vide order dtd. 16/5/2013. During pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31/3/2014. In anticipation of retirement on 31/3/2014 his suspension order was revoked vide order dtd. 27/3/2014. After retirement the enquiry continued and the enquiry officer submitted enquiry report. Copy of the enquiry report was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dtd. 19/6/2014. The enquiry officer has found all the four charges proved against the petitioner. Petitioner submitted a reply to the enquiry report and thereafter vide final order dtd. 27/11/2014 the petitioner has been dismissed from service under Rule 9(2) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension), Rules, 1976. Hence this petition before this Court.

(3.) Petitioner is assailing the impugned order inter-alia on the ground that after retirement even if the departmental proceedings continues but under Rule 9(2)(a) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension), Rules, 1976 the enquiry report is liable to be sent to the Governor with its finding and under Rule 9(1) the Governor is the competent authority to pass an order in respect of withholding or withdrawing the pension or part thereof. Therefore, after retirement neither petitioner can be terminated by the respondent-department, nor any pension can be withheld. After retirement the Governor is the competent authority only in respect of passing an order for withholding or withdrawing pension. In support of his contention, Shri Abhinav Dhanodkar, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in WP No.12216/2004 (A.A. Abraham Vs. State of M.P.) . He has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank Vs. Rajinder Lal reported in AIR 2007 SC 2129, wherein it has been held that an order of dismissal or removal from service can be passed only when an employee is in service. If a person is not in employment, the question of terminating his services ordinarily would not arise unless there exists a specific rule in that behalf.