Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sarasamma R Pillai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 23 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 4267 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SMT. SARASAMMA R PILLAI W/O SHRI R.B. PILLAI,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED
EMPLOYEE 37 A/1 SECTOR SARVDHARM COLONY
DISTRICT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI OM SHANKAR PANDEY - ADVOCATE - WITH SMT. ANCHAN
PANDEY - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY MP WATER RESOURCES
D EPARTM EN T VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF OFFICE OF ENGINEER
IN CHIEF WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT JAL
SANSADHAN BHAWAN BHOPAL 462003 (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. SUPERINTENDING ENGINER ADMINISTRATION
OFFICEOF ENGINEER IN CHIEF WATER
RESOURCES DEPARTMENT JAL SANSADHAN
BHAWAN BHOPAL 462003 (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI GIRISH KEKRE - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 2/27/2023 6:44:08 PM 2 By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is questioning the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 10/01/2023 (Annexure-P-1) whereby respondent no.1 by applying provision of Rule 9 of M.P Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 1976') has withdrawn pension of the petitioner which was being granted to him.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has filed a Criminal Appeal No.8689/2022 before this Court against his conviction, wherein the Court has suspended the sentence and granted bail to him, therefore, he is entitled to get provisional pension. He further submits that in one of the case i.e W.P.No.20032/2020 (Kanhaiyalal Damde Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) this Court has granted benefit of provisional pension as per Rule 64 of 'Rules 1976' and allowed the petition considering the fact that there is no order under Rule 8 of 'Rules 1976' as on date on record even after conviction of the petitioner. He prays to dispose of this petition in the light of the order passed by the Court in Kanhaiyalal Damde(supra).
However, I am not convinced with the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner for the reason that order passed by the Writ Court in which petitioner is relying upon has not considered the material aspect and the respective provision under which power can be exercised by the authorities for withholding or withdrawing the pension and applicability of Rule 64 of 'Rules 1976' in the circumstances existing.
In the present case, petitioner got retired on 30/04/2016 from the post of Assistant Grade-III and at that time she was facing criminal trial. The trial court vide judgment dated 16/09/2022 that too after retirement convicted the petitioner under Section 471 and 420/34 of IPC and awarded sentence of three years RI Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 2/27/2023 6:44:08 PM 3 with fine of Rs.1,000/-in Section 420 of IPC and further five years RI and fine of Rs.2,000/- in Section 471 of IPC. Thereafter, respondent no.1 on 16/01/2023 passed an order giving reference of a cabinet decision taken on 13/12/2022 for withdrawing of pension permanently exercising the provision of Rule 9 of 'Rules, 1976.' It is clear from the order which is impugned in this petition that though the authority has exercised the power under Rule 9 of 'Rules 1976' but infact the said power could have been exercised by the authority under the provision of Rule 8 of 'Rules 1976'. It is apt to quote the respective provision i.e Rule 8 and Rule 9 of 'Rules 1976' which are as under:-
8 . Pension subject to future good conduct. - (1) (a) Future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension and its continuance under these rules.
(b) The pension sanctioning authority may, by order in writing withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct:
Provided that no such order shall be passed by an authority subordinate to the authority competent at the time of retirement of the pensioner, to make an appointment to the post held by him immediately before his retirement from service :Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below [the minimum pension as determined by the Government from time to time].
(2) Where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a Court of law, action under clause (b) of sub rule (1) shall be taken in the light of the judgement of the Court relating to such conviction.Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 2/27/2023 6:44:08 PM 4
(3) In a case not falling under sub-rule (2), if the authority referred to in sub-rule (1) considers that the pensioner is prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, it shall before passing an order under sub rule (1):-
( a ) serve upon the pensioner a notice specifying the action proposed to be taken against him and the ground on which it is proposed to be taken and calling upon him to submit, within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice or such further time not exceeding fifteen days as may be allowed by the pension sanctioning authority, such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; and
(b) take into consideration the representation, if any, submitted by the pensioner under clause (a).
( 4 ) Where the authority competent to pass an order under sub-rule (1) is the Governor, the State Public Service Commission shall be consulted before the order is passed.
( 5 ) An appeal against an order under sub rule (1) passed by any authority other than the Governor, shall lie to the Governor and the Governor shall in consultation with the State Public Service Commission pass such order on the appeal as he deems fit. Explanation. - In this rule
(a) the expression "serious crime" includes a crime involving an offence under the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (No. 19 of 1923);
( b ) the expression "grave misconduct" includes the communication or disclosure of any secret official code or pass word or any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information such as is mentioned in Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, while holding office under the government so as to prejudicially affect the interests of the general public, or the security of the country.
[ Note - The Provisions of this rule shall also be applicable to family pension payable under Rules 47 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 2/27/2023 6:44:08 PM 5 and 48. The authority competent to make an appointment to the post held by the deceased Government servant/ pensioner immediately before the death or retirement from the service, as the case may be, shall be the competent authority to withhold or withdraw any part of family pension.] 9 . Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension. - (1) The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government if, in any departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement:] Provided that the State Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed :
Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below [the minimum pension as determined by the Government from time to time] ( 2 ) (a) The departmental proceedings [xxx], if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced, in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service:
Provided that 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. ( b ) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 2/27/2023 6:44:08 PM 6 whether before his retirement or during his re- employment:-
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor nor;
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution;
and [(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings :-
(a) in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service in case it is proposed to withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof whether permanently or for a specified period; or
(b) in which an order of recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service if it is proposed to order recovery from his pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government]. (3) No judicial proceeding, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution.
(4) In the case of a Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under sub-
rule (2), a provisional pension and death-cum- retirement gratuity as provided in [Rule 64], as the case may be, shall be sanctioned:
[Provided that where pension has already been Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 2/27/2023 6:44:08 PM 7 finally sanctioned to a Government servant prior to institution of departmental proceedings, the Governor may, by order in writing, withhold, with effect from the date of institution of such departmental proceedings fifty per cent of the pension so sanctioned subject however that the pension payable after such withholding is not reduced to less than [the minimum pension as determined by the Government from time to time]:
P r o v i d e d further that where departmental proceedings have been instituted prior to the 25th October, 1978, the first proviso shall have effect as it for the words with effect from the date of institution of such proceedings "the words with effect from a date not later than thirty days from the date aforementioned", had been substituted : Provided also that-
(a) If the departmental proceedings are not completed within a period of one year from the date of institution thereof, fifty per cent of the pension withheld shall stand restored on the expiration of the aforesaid period of one year;
(b) If the departmental proceedings are not completed within a period of two years from the date of institution the entire amount of pension so withheld shall stand restored on the expiration of the aforesaid period of two years; and
(c) If in the departmental proceedings final order is passed to withhold or withdraw the pension or any recovery is ordered, the order shall be deemed to take effect from the date of the institution of departmental proceedings and the amount, of pension since withheld shall be adjusted in terms of the final order subject to the limit specified in sub-rule (5) of Rule 43].
(5) Where the Government decides not to withhold or withdraw pension but orders recovery of pecuniary Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 2/27/2023 6:44:08 PM 8 loss from pension, the recovery shall not be made at a rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a Government servant. (6) For the purpose of this rule-
(a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date and
(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted-
(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made, and
(ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the Court.
From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that power of Rule 9 of 'Rules 1976' can be exercised for withholding or withdrawing the pension when Government servant caused any pecuniary loss to the Government and order of recovery can be passed in any departmental or judicial proceeding when pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon reemployment after retirement. Rule 9 makes it clear that the power can be exercised when misconduct is proved during the departmental or judicial proceeding causing pecuniary loss to the Government and as such order of recovery from pension can be passed by the Governor withholding the pension wholly or partly.
Here in this case, Rule 8 of 'Rules 1976' would be applicable which clearly deals with the situation when any pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a Court of law then pension can be withhold or withdraw permanently Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 2/27/2023 6:44:08 PM 9 or for a specific period. Aforesaid Rule also provides that future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension and its continuance under these rules.
In the present case, the authority has exercised the power under Rule 8 of 'Rules 1976' but under misconception quoted Rule 9 of 'Rules 1976.' It is a settled principle of law quoting a wrong provision by an authority exercising the power for which authority is competent the order is not vitiated. The Supreme Court in a case reported in (2011) 2 SCC 654 parties being Kedar Shashikant Deshpande and others Vs. Bhor Municipal Council and others has observed as under:-
59. In a catena of decisions, this Court has held that merely quoting wrong provisions of the statute while exercising power would not invalidate the order passed by the authority if it is shown that such order could be passed under other provisions of the statute. What is important to notice is that Section 3(1)(c) of the 1986 Act inter alia provides that a nominated member in relation to a Panchayat Samiti includes an associate member, referred to in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 57 of the Maharashtra Zila Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961. It is not the case of the appellants that they are either associate members or nominated members in relation to Bhor Municipal Council. Thus, reference made by the Collector to Section 3(1)(c) will have to be regarded as a mistake on his part because of difference in vernacular and English version of the Act of 1986. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case this Court is of the firm view that the appellants had incurred disqualification under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act as pleaded by Respondents 4 and 5 and not under Section 3(1)(c) of the Act as mentioned by the Collector.
Further, in a case reported in (2004) 12 SCC 278 parties being N. Mani Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 2/27/2023 6:44:08 PM 10 Vs. Sangeetha Theatre and others, the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
9 . It is well settled that if an authority has a power under the law merely because while exercising that power the source of power is not specifically referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision of law, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power does exist and can be traced to a source available in law.
The larger Bench in a reference passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.16549/2016 (Lal Saheb Bairagi Vs. State of M.P and others) has observed that after conviction if competent authority withhold or withdraw the pension wholly or in part then no prior notice is necessary. The observation made by larger Bench dealing with Rule 8 is as under:-
6 . It is well settled that payment of pension to a pensioner is regulated by the provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, and that the same has been made statutorily subject to future good conduct of the pensioner. The provisions of Rule 8 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, is reproduced herein below for ready reference :-
"8 . Pension subject to future good conduct. - (1) (a) Future good conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension and its continuance under these rules.
(b) The pension sanctioning authority may, by order in writing withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct:
Provided that no such order shall be passed by an authority subordinate to the authority competent at the time of retirement of the pensioner, to make an Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 2/27/2023 6:44:08 PM 11 appointment to the post held by him immediately before his retirement from service: Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below [the minimum pension as determined by the Government from time to time].
(2) Where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a Court of law, action under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) shall be taken in the light of the judgment of the Court relating to such conviction.
( 3 ) In a case not falling under sub-rule (2), if the authority referred to in sub-rule (1) considers that the pensioner is prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, it shall before passing an order under sub-rule(1)-
(a) serve upon the pensioner a notice specifying the action proposed to be taken against him and the ground on which it is proposed to be taken and calling upon him to submit, within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice or such further time not exceeding fifteen days as may be allowed by the pension sanctioning authority, such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; and
(b) take into consideration the representation, if any, submitted by the pensioner under clause (a). ( 4 ) Where the authority competent to pass an order under sub-rule (1) is the Governor, the State Public Service Commission shall be consulted before the order is passed.
( 5 ) An appeal against an order under sub-rule (1); passed by any authority other than the Governor, shall lie to the Governor and the Governor shall in consultation with the State Public Service Commission pass such order on the appeal as he deems fit. Explanation. - In this rule,-
(a) the expression "serious crime"
includes a crime involving an offence under the Official Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 2/27/2023 6:44:08 PM 12 Secrets Act 1923 (No. 19 of 1923);
(b) the expression "grave misconduct" includes the communication or disclosure of any secret official code or pass word or any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information such as is mentioned in Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, while holding office under the government so as to prejudicially affect the interests of the general public, nor the security of the country.
[Note - The Provisions of this rule shall also be applicable to family pension payable under Rules 47 and 48. The authority competent to make an appointment to the post held by the deceased Government servant/ pensioner immediately before the death or retirement from the service, as the case may be, shall be the competent authority to withhold or withdraw any part of family pension."
7. From the perusal of Rule 8 as reproduced here in above, it is clear that pension sanctioning authority may by an order in writing withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave misconduct. The pension can be withheld or withdrawn permanently or for a specified period. Rule 8(2) deals with cases of pensioner who has been convicted in a Criminal Case while Rule 8(3) deals with cases of pensioner found guilty of grave misconduct.
8. From a perusal of the provisions of Rule 8(3) of the Rules of 1976, it is clear that the said provision prescribes that where an authority considers a pensioner prima facie guilty of grave misconduct, it shall, before passing an order under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1976, serve upon the pensioner a notice specifying the action proposed to be taken against him; the ground on which the action is proposed t o be taken; call upon him to submit a representation Signature Not Verified within 15 days or any further time that is extended by Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 2/27/2023 6:44:08 PM 13 the authority, take into consideration the representation filed by the pensioner and thereafter pass an order. 9 It is, however, apparent from a bare perusal of the first few words of Rule 8(3) of the Rules of 1976, that the aforesaid procedure prescribed for passing orders against the pensioner in cases where he is p r i ma facie guilty of grave misconduct, has no applicability to cases falling under Rule 8(2) of the Rules of 1976 which deals with the action to be taken against a pensioner convicted by a Criminal Court. The starting words of Rule 8(3) of the Rules of 1976, œIn a case not falling under sub-rule (2), make it abundantly clear and state in no uncertain terms, that the provisions of Rule 8(3) of the Rules of 1976, shall apply only to those cases that do not fall under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1976.
10. A perusal of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1976, makes it further clear that the category of cases that fall under Rule 8(2) of the Rules of 1976, are those cases in which action has been taken in the light of the judgment of the Court where the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a Court of law and that while taking such action, the elaborate procedure prescribed under Rule 8(3) of the Rules of 1976, would not apply as the same has been expressly excluded by the opening words of Rule 8(3) of the Rules of 1976. Rule 8(2) of the Rules of 1976, does not contemplate giving of an opportunity of hearing when the pension is withheld or withdrawn on account of conviction of a serious crime.
11. The aforesaid aspect and interpretation of the Rules is apparent from a bare perusal and reading of the Rules. The language of Rule 8(3) of the Rules of 1976, is simple, unambiguous and clear and leads to no other interpretation, meaning or conclusion.
12. In view of the clear and unambiguous language of Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 2/27/2023 6:44:08 PM 14 the provisions of Rule 8(3) of the Rules of 1976, which incidentally was neither considered nor brought to the notice of the Full Bench in the case of Ram Sewak Mishra vs. State of M.P. and another (supra), it is held that the principles of natural justice cannot be read into Rule 8(2) of the Rules of 1976, as they are statutorily and expressly excluded by the opening words of Rule 8(3) of the Rules of 1976.
13. The principles of natural justice or holding of an enquiry is neither a universal principle of justice nor inflexible dogma. The principles of natural justice are not incapable of exclusion in a given situation. For example, Article 311(2) of the Constitution, which essentially embodies the concept of natural justice, itself contemplates that there may be situations which warrant or permit the non- applicability of the principles underlying Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Reference may be made to the second proviso to Article 311 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in Union of India vs Tulsiram Patel AIR 1985 SC 1416 = (1985)3 SCC 398 had in terms of Art 311 ruled that not only, can the principles of natural justice be modified but in exceptional cases they can even be excluded.
14. The Rule 8(2) enables the authority to exercise power under Rule 8(1)(b) upon conviction of serious crime in the light of the Judgment of the criminal court. While doing so, it must consider whether his conduct which has led to his conviction was such as warrants the withholding/withdrawing of pension. For that purpose it will have to peruse then judgment of the criminal court and consider all the facts and circumstances of the case. This, however, has to be done by it ex parte and by itself and without hearing the concerned pensioner reason of the exclusionary effect of the starting words of Rule 8(3) upon exercise of powers under Rule 8(2) of the 1976 Rules.
1 5 In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 2/27/2023 6:44:08 PM 15 Court in the case of Tulsiram (supra), which is fully applicable to the present case as well, the authority must, however, bear in mind that a conviction on a criminal charge does not automatically entail withdrawal or withholding of pension. This can be done in the light of the judgment of the Court relating to such conviction. No direction for taking action in the judgment of the criminal Court is necessary or required for taking action under Rule 8(2) of the Rules of 1976. This authoritative judgment of the Supreme Court was completely overlooked by the learned Single Bench while deciding Dau Ram Maheshwar case(supra) on the basis of decision of Chhatisgarh High Court. The majority view in Ram Sew ak Mishra(supra) wrongly did not apply the decision of Tulsi Ram Patel (supra) to the Rules of 1976. On the other hand the earlier Full Bench in Laxmi Narayan Hayaran v. State of M.P. reported in 2004(4) MPLJ 555 after considering the relevant case law including Tulsi Ram Patel (supra), correctly held that no prior hearing is required before passing an order under Rule 8(2) of 1976 Rules consequent upon conviction.
1 6 . The upshot of the whole discussion is that the decision of the Single Bench as well as the Full Bench in Ram Sewak v. State of M.P.(supra) does not lay down the correct law, while the earlier Full Bench decision in Laxmi Narayan Hayaran v. State of M.P. (supra) lays down the correct law.
17. The answer to the questions referred to this Larger Bench is given accordingly by clearly stating that:-
(i) The principles of natural justice are specifically and expressly excluded and have no application to the cases falling under Rule 8(2) of 1976 Rules in view of the opening words of Rule 8(3) of the Rules of 1976, therefore, when an action is taken against the pensioner under Rule 8(2) of the Rules of 1976, no notice is required to be issued to the pensioner nor Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 2/27/2023 6:44:08 PM 16 can he insists upon prior opportunity of representation on the strength of the principles of Natural Justice.
(ii) The decision of the Full Bench in the case of Ram Sewak Mishra (supra) and the decision in the case of Dau Ram Maheshwar (supra) are hereby over- ruled.
(iii) It is held that the authority is not required to issue notice or afford prior opportunity of representation before passing the order under Rule 8(2) of the Pension Rules of 1976, in respect of a pensioner who has been convicted in the criminal cases. However, the power of the authority to take action under the Rules would be subject to the guidelines as stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Tulsiram Patel (supra) and reiterated by this Bench in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment.
1 8 . The Reference made to the Larger Bench is answered accordingly. The petition may now be placed before the appropriate Bench as per Rules and Roster, for further orders.
The Division Bench recently in Gyaneshwar Choudhary and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (Writ Appeal No.1710/2022 decided on 05/01/2023) has observed that after conviction the pensioner is not entitled to get pension and if order is passed by the authority under Rule 8 of 'Rules 1976' withdrawing pension, the same cannot be said to be illegal. The Division Bench has also relied upon the view taken by larger Bench in Lal Saheb Bairagi (supra).
T hus , I am of the opinion that in the present case, there was no applicability of Rule 9 of 'Rules 1976'. The order should have been passed by the competent authority under Rule 8 of 'Rules 1976' and said power can be exercised by the authority i.e respondent no.1, therefore, merely quoting a wrong provision by the authority, does not make the order illegal or vitiated.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 2/27/2023 6:44:08 PM 17This petition does not have any substance and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE sushma Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Signing time: 2/27/2023 6:44:08 PM