MP Civil Services (Pension) Rules | Departmental Enquiry May Continue After Retirement But Punishment Order Can Be Passed Only By Governor: High Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court at its Gwalior, quashed an order imposing penalty on a retired Forest Ranger Harivallabh Chaturvedi. The court held proper procedures under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 were not followed. The court stated that after a government servant retires, only the Governor can issue such punitive orders based on departmental inquiries.
The Court, presided over by Justice Anil Verma stated,
“As per Rule 9(2)(a) of the Rules, 1976, the departmental enquiry having been initiated before the retirement, the same can be continued after his retirement. However, the order of punishment is to be passed by the Governor, who is the highest authority in the State. The failure to follow this mandatory procedure renders the order passed by the disciplinary authority vulnerable.”
The case was about whether the disciplinary body had the power to impose a penalty following Chaturvedi's retirement. Departmental proceedings commenced before retirement may continue under Rule 9(2)(a) of the Pension Rules, but any penalties imposed must be ordered by the Governor.
The case of Prem Prakash Sharma vs. MPMKVVCL (2018) was referred to where it was held that only the Governor has the authority to impose penalties on retired government servants after departmental inquiries. The Court stated that the mandatory provisions of Rule 9(2)(a) were overlooked in Petitioner's case, therefore making penalty order invalid.
“Any order inflicting penalty to the penalty can be issued by the Governor, but the same mandatory procedure has not been applied in the instant matter. Hence, the impugned order dated 23.05.2022 is totally beyond jurisdiction and in the interest of justice, the same deserves to be quashed”
The petitioner, Harivallabh Chaturvedi, was a Forest Ranger who was accused of unauthorised road construction, which caused the government monetary losses. Although disciplinary proceedings began prior to his retirement, the punishment was imposed after his superannuation . Petitioner disputed the order, arguing that the disciplinary body lacked power to issue such an order after retirement because only the Governor has the ability under Rule 9(2)(a) of the Pension Rules, 1976.
The court in this case quashed the impugned order and directed the State to release all retiral benefits due to the petitioner within two months, along with 6% interest per annum.
Case title: Harivallabh Chaturvedi Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Case No: WP No. 13253 of 2022