Power Of Review Under Rule 29(1) MP Civil Services Rules Cannot Be Exercised Beyond Period Of Six Months: Madhya Pradesh HC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the power of review under Rule 29(1) of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, must be exercised within six months.

The Court was dealing with petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an order withholding pensionary benefits.

The single-bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi referred to the following observations made in an earlier judgment:"A perusal of the aforesaid rule clearly indicates that the provision relating to the limitation of 6 months is in respect of the authorities referred to in rule 29(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules. The use of word “or” in the aforesaid rule is indicative of the fact that the power of review could be exercised by any of the authorities referred to in the rule 29(1)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules within a period of 6 months and not thereafter.”’

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Amit Choubey and while respondent was represented by Government Advocate Girish Kekre.

The facts of the case are that the petitioner after rendering 38 years of services, got three promotions in his service career and retired from the post of Sub Divisional Magistrate on 31.07.2020. During the petitioner’s service career, an enquiry was conducted against him wherein though he got acquitted from the charges levelled against him, but vide order dated 11.10.2022, a decision for reviewing the petitioner’s exoneration from such enquiry was taken and pursuant thereto, punishing the petitioner vide order dated 05.12.2022 his pensionary benefits were withheld.

The District Magistrate had discharged the petitioner from all the charges levelled against him in an incident of explosion in a factory. However, a departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner by the then Commissioner, who had also exonerated the petitioner from all the charges levelled against him.

Though, the petitioner got retired from service on 31.07.2020, but his retiral dues were put on hold by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a petition in which the respondents were asked to consider the petitioner’s representation but in the meantime, he was summoned by the respondents saying that the decision of his exoneration from the enquiry is now being reviewed exercising the power provided under Rule 29(1) of the Rules, 1966 and at a later point of time, the decision in respect of withholding the 90% petitioner’s gratuity amount and the petitioner’s pension was taken.

The respondents, in the reply filed submitted that there is no limitation prescribed for exercising the power of review by the State. 

The court rejected the respondent's submission while affirming the power to review to review under the said Rules to be strictly within six months and not beyond that.

The petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Shri Kameshwar Choubey vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Click here to read/ download order: