Non-supply of Public Service Commission advice and lack of proven grave misconduct vitiates pension withholding orders.

The petitioner, a retired Joint Collector, was served a charge-sheet on March 30, 2013—one day prior to his superannuation—alleging irregularities in granting government leases while serving as a Tahsildar in 2001-02

Following a departmental inquiry, the State Government passed an order on May 29, 2018, imposing a major penalty of withholding 10% of his pension for two years under Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976

The petitioner challenged this order on grounds of procedural lapses, including the non-supply of relevant documents and the Advice of the Public Service Commission (PSC), and claimed immunity under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985

Rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976, which empowers the Governor to withhold pension only if a pensioner is found guilty of "grave misconduct or negligence"

The court relied on Union of India v. R.P. Singh, establishing that PSC advice used against a delinquent officer must be communicated in advance to satisfy natural justice

Sections 2 and 3 of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985, define "Judge" broadly to include any person empowered to give a definitive judgment and provides immunity for acts done in the discharge of judicial duties

The court followed Union of India v. J. Ahmed and Inspector Prem Chand v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which hold that errors of judgment, negligence simpliciter, or lack of efficiency do not amount to "misconduct" unless accompanied by ill-motive

The court found the inquiry procedurally flawed because the respondents failed to serve the PSC advice or requested documents to the petitioner, violating Rule 30 of the M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966, and the principles of natural justice

Applying the Judges (Protection) Act, the court reasoned that the petitioner, while exercising powers under the M.P. Land Revenue Code, acted as a "Judge" and was therefore immune from proceedings for bona fide judicial acts

The court further observed that the charges related to the settlement of land were at most "carelessness" or an "error of judgment"

Since the State failed to prove any financial loss, ill-motive, or "grave misconduct" as required by Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, the drastic measure of withholding pension—a proprietary right—was legally unsustainable

The High Court quashed the impugned order dated May 29, 2018 [para. 25(i)]. The respondents were directed to refund the withheld 10% pension with 6% interest per annum within three months, with a default interest rate of 12% if not paid within the stipulated period