A.A. Abraham vs. State of M.P. and others

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

WPS, 12216 of 2004, Judgment Date: Dec 03, 2020

Law laid down -

1. Rule 15 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 - Disciplinary authority can issue direction for conducting ‘further inquiry’.

2. Further inquiry or denovo inquiry- Under Rule 15, the disciplinary authority cannot issue directions to conduct a ‘denovo inquiry’. In the instant case, since charge-sheet remained the same and only direction issued was to record evidence of prosecution witnesses which was not previously recorded, the direction amounts to holding ‘further inquiry’ and not ‘denovo inquiry/reinquiry’.

3. Rule 9 of M.P. Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1976 – If a departmental inquiry is instituted before retirement of employee, it shall continue and conclude in the same manner by the authority by which it was commenced.

4. Proviso to Rule 9(2) of the Pension Rules- Initiating/ disciplinary authority cannot impose punishment, indeed, he is under a statutory obligation to submit his report to the Governor regarding the findings submitted by Inquiry Officer.

5. Rule 64 of Pension Rules pending departmental inquiry or criminal case – The department is empowered to sanction anticipatory pension. The department is right in not releasing the entire pension and gratuity because of pendency of departmental enquiry.

6. Article 300A of the Constitution– The pension/retiral dues are not bounty. The same can be withheld if law permits. Executive Instructions cannot be treated as law but Rule 64 of Pension Rules is a statutory provision which permits the department to grant anticipatory pension.

A.A. Abraham vs. State of M.P. and others