CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2013) 12 MP CK 0143

Dr. Gopi Nath Chaturvedi vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Another

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 3 December 2013

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sujoy Paul, J
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 4100 of 2005

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 332 words

Sujoy Paul, J.—Petitioner has called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated 24.7.2005, whereby recovery of Rs. 53601/- is inflicted on the petitioner with the direction that it will be recovered from the gratuity of the petitioner. Shri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, advanced singular legal contention that the Commissioner was not competent to inflict this punishment. The petitioner has retired on 31.10.2004. Thus, it is contended that recovery as a measure of punishment from gratuity can be made only as per the provisions of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, the "Pension Rules").

2.

Smt. Sangita Pachauri, learned Deputy Government Advocate submits that although reply is not filed but the action of the department is in accordance with law.

3.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the contention of Shri D.P. Singh has substantial force. Rule 9 of the Pension Rules makes it clear that the right is reserved with the Governor to withhold or withdraw the pension. A Microscopic reading of this provision makes it clear that any recovery or reduction from pension or gratuity can be made only in consonance and in conformity with Rule 9 of the Pension Rules. Right is reserved to the Governor to withhold or withdraw the pension.

4.

Thus, as per Rule 9, the Commissioner has erred in inflicting the recovery with direction to recover it from gratuity. The impugned order runs contrary to Rule 9 of the Pension Rules and is, therefore, set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to take action in accordance with law from the stage, which was prevailing prior to issuance of Annexure P-1. However, this is a nine years old matter and, therefore, if the respondents intend to take further action against the petitioner, it shall be completed within eight months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, failing which the disciplinary proceedings shall stand abated. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.