Arun Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Single Judge)

WRIT PETITION, 8047 of 2016, Judgment Date: Dec 21, 2017

Law laid down -
➢ Merely registration of the FIR and offence by the Lokayukt Establishment would not debar the petitioner because the judicial proceedings have not deemed to be instituted on the date of attaining the age of superannuation by the petitioner.
➢ The Governor is having the right to withhold or withdraw the pension or part thereof in the contingencies specified in Rule 9(1), in case an employee is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence committed by him during the course of his employment either in departmental or judicial proceeding. Therefore, Rule 9 of the Pension Rules limits the power of the competent authority only with respect to pension and service gratuity not for other retiral benefits. However the right of the Governor to “withhold” or “withdraw” the pension can be exercised against the Government servant after retirement or otherwise against whom departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or the judicial proceedings are continued under sub-rule (2) then the provisional pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity as provided under Rule 64 shall be sanctioned.
➢ In the present case, the situation is not covered either to withhold or withdraw the pension but it persist with the department on attaining the age of superannuation by the petitioner to whom the pension and the gratuity has not been paid by the department in reference to Rule 64. However, it is not a case wherein withholding or withdrawing of pension has been directed by the Governor against the employee after superannuation.

Arun Kumar Pandey Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others