Madhya Pradesh High Court
Meghram Dubey vs The State Of M.P. on 22 January, 2025
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3195
1 W.P. No.18733/2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 22nd OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No.18733 of 2003
MEGHRAM DUBEY
Versus
THE STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS
............................................................................................................................................
Appearance:
None for the petitioner.
Shri Ved Prakash Tiwari - Government Advocate for the
respondents/State.
............................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This petition has been filed challenging the order of termination
dated 22/05/2000 passed by the respondents on the ground that though
the petitioner has been convicted in Session Trial No.795/1998 for Life
Imprisonment vide judgment dated 17/12/1999 but he has preferred
Criminal Appeal before this Court being Cr.A. No.65/2000 which is
pending consideration and this Court vide order dated 14/02/2000 has
suspended the sentence of the present petitioner.
2. This petition is being filed asking for quashment of the
termination order on the ground that as the sentence of the petitioner has
already been suspended by this Court, therefore the termination order
should be set aside.
3. The fact remains that the petitioner has already been held guilty
for the charges leveled against him in S.T. No. 798 of 1998 vide
judgment of conviction dated 17/12/1999 for offence under Section
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-01-2025
11:11:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3195
2 W.P. No.18733/2003
302/34 of IPC for Life Imprisonment. Merely the pendency of appeal
and the suspension of sentence granted to him by this Court does not
entitle the petitioner asking for setting aside of the termination order.
Only sentence has been suspended. Petitioner is still guilty of
committing an offence under Section 302/34 of IPC.
4. This Court in the case of Sobran Singh Sikarwar Vs. The State
of Madhya Pradesh and others decided on 28/08/2024 in Writ
Petition No.5759/2017 has considered the similar issue and has held as
under:
“6. The undisputed facts in this petition are that the
petitioner has been convicted vide judgement dated
28/3/2012 passed by VII Additional Sessions Judge,
Gwalior in S.T. No. 6/2011 for the offences
punishable under sections 302 read with 34 of the
IPC, 498A of the IPC and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act. In criminal appeal having been preferred, the
custodial sentence has been suspended vide order
dated 5/4/2013. Petitioner’s prayer for grant of
pensionary benefits or reinstatement in service as he
has not been placed under suspension nor his services
have been terminated by the Authorities, cannot be
considered for the reason that petitioner is a
convicted employee. He has been found guilty of
committing the offences as detailed above. Similar
issue came for consideration before the Full Bench of
this Court in the case of Lal Saheb Bairagi (Supra),
wherein it has been held as under:-
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 the
judgment of the criminal court and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-01-2025
11:11:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:31953 W.P. No.18733/2003
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.
15. In view of the law laid down by the
Supreme 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 Sewak 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 Tulsiram Patel (supra), correctly
held that no prior hearing is required
before passing an order under Rule 8(2) of
1976 Rules consequent upon conviction.
***
17. The answer to the questions referred to
this Larger Bench is given accordingly by
clearly stating that:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-01-2025
11:11:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3195
4 W.P. No.18733/2003
(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(2) 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
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.”
7. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No. 7437-7438 of 2021 (The Secretary
Local Self Government Department & Others
Etc. Vs. K.Chandran Etc.) has held that after
conviction, the employee is not entitled to claim
pension or any other retiral dues even though his
criminal appeal against conviction is pending before
the High Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Ram Ratan Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. and
Others (2002 (5) MPHT 11) has held that criminal
appeal is not continuation of trial, therefore, in terms
of the provisions of Rule 8 of the Pension Rules,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-01-2025
11:11:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3195
5 W.P. No.18733/2003
1976, an employee convicted for a serious offence is
not entitled for claiming pensionary benefits.”
5. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Sareen Vs. CBI,
Chandigarh reported in (2001) 6 SCC 584 has held as under:-
“10. A three-Judge Bench of this Court has
elaborately considered the scope and ambit of the
powers of the appellate court envisaged in Section
389 of the Code (vide Rama Narang v. Ramesh
Narang [(1995) 2 SCC 513] ). Ahmadi, C.J., who
authored the judgment for the Bench said that what
can be suspended under Section 389(1) of the Code
is the execution of the sentence or execution of the
order and obviously the “order” referred to in the
sub-section must be an order which is capable of
execution. Learned Chief Justice then observed thus:
(SCC p. 524, para 15)
“An order of conviction by itself is not
capable of execution under the Code. It is the
order of sentence or an order awarding
compensation or imposing fine or release on
probation which are capable of execution and
which, if not suspended, would be required to
be executed by the authorities. Since the order
of conviction does not on the mere filing of
an appeal disappear it is difficult to accept the
submission that Section 267 of the Companies
Act must be read to apply only to a „final‟
order of conviction. Such an interpretation
may defeat the very object and purpose for
which it came to be enacted.”
Nevertheless, the three-Judge Bench further stated
that in a certain situation the order of conviction can
be executable and in such a case the power under
Section 389(1) of the Code could be invoked. The
ratio of the judgment can be traced out in the said
paragraph which is extracted below: (SCC pp. 524-
25, para 16)
“16. In certain situations the order of
conviction can be executable, in the sense, it
may incur a disqualification as in the instant
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-01-2025
11:11:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3195
6 W.P. No.18733/2003
case. In such a case the power under Section
389(1) of the Code could be invoked. In such
situations the attention of the appellate court
must be specifically invited to the
consequences which are likely to fall to
enable it to apply its mind to the issue since
under Section 389(1) it is under an obligation
to support its order „for reasons to be recorded
by it in writing‟. If the attention of the court is
not invited to this specific consequence which
is likely to fall upon conviction how can it be
expected to assign reasons relevant thereto?
No one can be allowed to play hide and seek
with the court; he cannot suppress the precise
purpose for which he seeks suspension of the
conviction and obtain a general order of stay
and then contend that the disqualification has
ceased to operate.”
11. The legal position, therefore, is this: though the
power to suspend an order of conviction, apart from
the order of sentence, is not alien to Section 389(1)
of the Code, its exercise should be limited to very
exceptional cases. Merely because the convicted
person files an appeal in challenge of the conviction
the court should not suspend the operation of the
order of conviction. The court has a duty to look at
all aspects including the ramifications of keeping
such conviction in abeyance. It is in the light of the
above legal position that we have to examine the
question as to what should be the position when a
public servant is convicted of an offence under the
PC Act. No doubt when the appellate court admits
the appeal filed in challenge of the conviction and
sentence for the offence under the PC Act, the
superior court should normally suspend the sentence
of imprisonment until disposal of the appeal, because
refusal thereof would render the very appeal otiose
unless such appeal could be heard soon after the
filing of the appeal. But suspension of conviction of
the offence under the PC Act, dehors the sentence of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-01-2025
11:11:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3195
7 W.P. No.18733/2003
imprisonment as a sequel thereto, is a different
matter.
12. Corruption by public servants has now reached a
monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have
started grappling even the institutions created for the
protection of the republic. Unless those tentacles are
intercepted and impeded from gripping the normal
and orderly functioning of the public offices, through
strong legislative, executive as well as judicial
exercises the corrupt public servants could even
paralyse the functioning of such institutions and
thereby hinder the democratic polity. Proliferation of
corrupt public servants could garner momentum to
cripple the social order if such men are allowed to
continue to manage and operate public institutions.
When a public servant is found guilty of corruption
after a judicial adjudicatory process conducted by a
court of law, judiciousness demands that he should
be treated as corrupt until he is exonerated by a
superior court. The mere fact that an appellate or
revisional forum has decided to entertain his
challenge and to go into the issues and findings made
against such public servants once again should not
even temporarily absolve him from such findings. If
such a public servant becomes entitled to hold public
office and to continue to do official acts until he is
judicially absolved from such findings by reason of
suspension of the order of conviction, it is public
interest which suffers and sometimes, even
irreparably. When a public servant who is convicted
of corruption is allowed to continue to hold public
office, it would impair the morale of the other
persons manning such office, and consequently that
would erode the already shrunk confidence of the
people in such public institutions besides
demoralising the other honest public servants who
would either be the colleagues or subordinates of the
convicted person. If honest public servants are
compelled to take orders from proclaimed corrupt
officers on account of the suspension of the
conviction, the fallout would be one of shaking the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-01-2025
11:11:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:3195
8 W.P. No.18733/2003
system itself. Hence it is necessary that the court
should not aid the public servant who stands
convicted for corruption charges to hold only (sic)
public office until he is exonerated after conducting a
judicial adjudication at the appellate or revisional
level. It is a different matter if a corrupt public
officer could continue to hold such public office even
without the help of a court order suspending the
conviction.”
6. Learned State counsel on verification submits that the criminal
appeal is still pending before this Court.
7. Under the circumstances, until and unless the petitioner is
acquitted from the charges leveled against him, his termination order
could not be set aside.
8. Learned State counsel has brought to the notice of this Court that
in the pending criminal appeal, an application for deleting the name of
the petitioner/appellant has been filed on affidavit of wife of the
petitioner/appellant requesting for deletion of name of
petitioner/appellant from the Criminal Appeal No.65/2000 on the
ground that petitioner/appellant has expired on 03/06/2021.
9. Under these circumstances, when the wife herself does not want
to continue with the proceedings, no relief can be extended to the
petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed. No
order as to costs.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Shbhnkr
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHUBHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-01-2025
11:11:12
[ad_1]
Source link