AJAY KUMAR PANDVIA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Sub Engineer on 5/3/1984 and subsequently, vide order dtd. 24/4/1999, the petitioner was declared as Gazetted Officer. Thereafter, on the basis of some false complaint a criminal case was registered against the petitioner under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Sec. 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner was government employee, the permission under Sec. 197 of CrPC was not taken before filing of the challan against the petitioner. Therefore, by order dtd. 6/3/2010, the Special Court has refused to take cognizance of the case for want of requisite permission from the government under Sec. 197 of Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that challan has been filed before Special Judge. Thereafter, petitioner requested for his voluntary retirement and his request was accepted and petitioner was voluntary retired on 5/8/2010. It is submitted that before issuing the impugned order, no consultation was made with the State Public Service Commission. However, it is further submitted that the approval or consultation of the State Public Service Commission is not mandatory for matters relating to pension.

(3.) The aforesaid powers were exercised under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules 1976 and though the powers under Rule 9 is conferred upon the Governor and not to the State Government, the impugned order was passed in the name of Governor by the State Government. Before passing of the said order, no opportunity of hearing was ever granted to the petitioner, no notice was issued to him, thus the said order has been passed in utter violation of principle of natural justice. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of withholding of 100% of pension, the present petition has been filed.