Governor Can't Punish Guilty Govt Official By Dismissal Under Rules, Can Only Withhold/Withdraw Pension For Misconduct: Madhya Pradesh HC

Governor Can't Punish Guilty Govt Official By Dismissal Under Rules, Can Only Withhold/Withdraw Pension For Misconduct: Madhya Pradesh HC

Anukriti Mishra

8 Feb 2025 6:00 PM

Image by: Shubha Patidar

While setting aside a dismissal order of a retired government official, the Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court concluded that under the state civil service pension rules the Governor can only withhold or withdraw the officer's pension for grave misconduct/negligence but cannot impose punishment of dismissal.

Referring to the provisions of the MP Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976A single judge bench of Justice Vivek Rusia observed, “In view of Rule 9(1) if any government employee has been found guilty in a judicial proceeding and any departmental proceeding of a grave misconduct or negligence, the only punishment which can be imposed by the Governor is withholding or withdrawing the pension or part thereof, permanently or for a specified period. Therefore, there is no provision of imposition of punishment of dismissal from service even by the Governor.”

It further observed that Rule 9(2)(a) gives right to the disciplinary authority to continue with the departmental proceedings, if instituted while the government servant was in service and after final retirement of the government servant, the enquiry shall be deemed to be a proceeding under this rule and shall continue and concluded by the authority, by which they were commenced, in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service. As per the proviso, where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the Governor, that authority shall submit a report regarding its findings to the Governor.

"Therefore, after conclusion of the enquiry, the authority ought to have sent this report to the Governor for passing appropriate order under Rule 9(1), instead of passing any order of punishment. Therefore, in view of the above, order of dismissal from service is unsustainable and is hereby set aside," the court directed.

The order was passed in a plea where the petitioner was aggrieved by his dismissal order passed by the DIG, Nimar Range, Khargone under Rule 9(2) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension), Rules, 1976.

As per the factual matrix of the case, the petitioner was placed under suspension by Superintendent of Police, Khargone on account of his involvement in offence under Section 364-A of IPC (Kidnapping for ransom, etc). Thereafter, the charge sheet was served upon him and enquiry officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry.

The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge sheet denying the charges. During pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. In anticipation of retirement on 31.3.2014 his suspension order was revoked. After retirement the enquiry continued and the enquiry officer submitted enquiry report in which all the four charges were proved against the petitioner. Petitioner submitted a reply to the enquiry report. However, the petitioner was dismissed from service under Rule 9(2) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension), Rules, 1976.

The counsel for the petitioner contended that after retirement even if the departmental proceedings continues, under Rule 9(2)(a) of the state Civil Services (Pension), Rules, 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 only the Governor is the competent authority in respect of passing an order for withholding or withdrawing pension.

On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the provision of Rule 9(2) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension), Rules, 1976 would not apply to the petitioner as he has retired from service. However, the respondent did not state under which provision the order of dismissal could have been passed.

The petitioner also submitted that a criminal case was registered against him in which he was later acquitted. After acquittal the petitioner had submitted an application for payment of pension but the same had not been considered.

After hearing the parties, the court perused the rules and found that the dismissal order was unsustainable and allowed the plea.

“As per Rule 9(2) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension), Rules, 1976 the authority who initiated the enquiry, is directed to send this enquiry report to the Governor for passing an appropriate order,” the Court said.

Case Title: Nausad Qureshi Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No. 9268 Of 2014

Counsel for Petitioner: Adv. Abhinav Dhanodkar

Counsel for State: Adv. Sudeep Bhargava