Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prabhat Kabra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 June, 2020
Author: Vandana Kasrekar
Bench: Vandana Kasrekar
W.P. No.337/2019 1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH:BENCH AT INDORE
Single Bench: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Vandana Kasrekar
W.P. No.337/2019
Prabhat Kabra S/o Bharatchandraji
vs.
State of M.P.
======================================
Shri Anand Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Nilesh Jagtap, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.
======================================
ORDER
(Passed on 26/06/2020) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 10/10/2018 by which 20% of the pension has been withheld after retirement of the petitioner.
2. Short facts of the case are that petitioner was working on the post of Deputy Collector. He retired on 31/10/2014. When the petitioner was posted at Dewas as SDO (Revenue), the petitioner acted without jurisdiction and allotted surplus land of ceiling for the plantation. Thereafter he served with the charge-sheet dated 29/10/2014. The petitioner has submitted the reply to the charge-sheet on 23/07/2015 alongwith all documentary evidence and denied all the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, Inquiry Officer was appointed and petitioner has submitted written statement before the Inquiry Officer on 10/08/2016. The Inquiry Officer submitted its report on 09/02/2017, which was served on him on 21/04/2017. The W.P. No.337/2019 2 petitioner submitted reply to the Inquiry Officer's report to the respondent on 25/05/2017. Neither the Inquiry Officer nor the Disciplinary Authority has considered the defence of the petitioner which was based on documentary and legal evidence and passed the impugned order of punishment dated 10/10/2018 whereby withholding 20% pension of the petitioner that too after his retirement. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as charge No.1 is concerned, regarding cancellation of allotment of land that order was cancelled by SDO on 30/11/2004 and an entry has been made in Khasra, therefore, no misconduct is attributed. So far as charge No.2 is concerned, it is to be noted that the land was given for plantation was well within the jurisdiction of the petitioner and there is no bar in allotment of the land for plantation by the SDO. Even otherwise, the concern person has not misused the land in any manner. The Collector has vide its letter dated 04/03/2012 has set-aside the allotment. So far as charge No.3 is concerned, regarding violation of provisions of Town and Country Planning Act. The diversion was done as per the powers given in Section 172 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. In such case, no permission is required from the Town and Country Planning Department. He argued that in the report, all the evidence produced by the parties has not been discussed. He further argued that Departmental Inquiry against the petitioner has been completed after retirement of the petitioner i.e. almost 4 years of his retirement and in such case for continuing the Departmental Inquiry no permission was given from the W.P. No.337/2019 3 Governor of the State of M.P., therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 10/10/2018 deserves to be quashed.
4. Respondent has filed the reply. In the said reply, respondent has stated that during the period from 11/01/2010 to 07/12/2012, when the petitioner was posted at Dewas as SDO (Revenue), he acted without jurisdiction and alloted the surplus land of ceiling for the plantation in light of the relevant rules. As per Section 239 (7), the Tehsildar is competent to issue Patta for plantation on Government land. The petitioner also committed so many other irregularities. On the basis of said allegations, Inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and charges were levelled against him.
5. It is submitted that as per Section 9(1) of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 which provides that after retirement, if the conduct of the retired employee found negligent and because of the conduct of the retired employee, the loss was caused to the Government, then, the part of pension of the employee can be withheld. It is further submitted that a grave irregularity has been proved against the petitioner, therefore, as per Rule 9 of the Rules of 1976, it was decided to return back the 20% of 10 years. In other 14 cases the petitioner has accepted the permission of diversion in favour of Colonizer, those who are not having the valid license, therefore, because of the act of the petitioner, for the illegal colonizing was projected. It is stated that the petitioner has submitted reply dated 23/07/2015 to the charges levelled against him. During pendency of Departmental Inquiry, the petitioner was retired on 31/10/2014, therefore, by virtue of order dated 27/04/2018 a decision has been taken under Rule W.P. No.337/2019 4 9 of the Rules of 1976 to withheld 20% pension for 10 years. It is also submitted that case of the petitioner was forwarded to the MPPSC and MPPSC vide its order dated 17/06/2018 has given consent over the administrative decision taken by the Department with respect to the petitioner of withholding 20% of the pension after retirement. In light of the aforesaid, he submits that petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. In the present case, the petitioner was working on the post of Deputy Collector/SDO (Revenue) at District-Dewas. While he was posted at Dewas a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 29/10/2014 levelling three charges. The petitioner has filed his reply to the above charge-sheet on 23/07/2015. Thereafter, Inquiry Officer was appointed and Inquiry Officer has submitted his Inquiry Report on 09/02/2017, which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 21/04/2017. Petitioner submitted reply to the Eqnuiry Officer's report to the respondent on 25/05/2017. On the basis of report submitted by the Inquiry Officer that during pendency of Departmental Inquiry, the petitioner was retired on 31/01/2014, therefore, Administrative permission was taken by the respondent to impose the punishment of reduction of 20% of the pension of petitioner for 10 years.
8. In the present case, the respondent in the impugned order has not stated that how the petitioner has committed the misconduct by which loss has been caused to the respondent. Respondent had not complied with the provisions of Rule 9 of the Pension Rules. The order impugned does not show that the W.P. No.337/2019 5 approval of Governor was taken before passing the order of punishment. Thus, in light of the aforesaid detailed discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I deem it proper that petition deserves to be allowed, accordingly it is allowed. Order dated 10/10/2018 by which 20% of the pension has been withheld after retirement of the petitioner for 10 years is hereby set-aside and directed the respondent to restore the entire pension of the petitioner and also pay him the amount of arrears which has been withhold by the respondent within a period of four months from today.
C.C. as per rules.
(Ms. Vandana Kasrekar) Judge Aiyer* Digitally signed by Jagdishan Aiyer Date: 2020.06.27 13:00:22 +05'30'