Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
K. Varadarajulu – Petitioner
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 19785 of 2021
Decided On : 14-03-2022
PENSION - WITHHOLDING - CRIMINAL CASE ACQUITTAL - PENDING APPEAL - NO BAR TO RELEASE OF PENSION - ANDHRA PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1964 - SECTION 60(1) - SECTION 52 - REVISED PENSION RULES - RULE 52(1)(C) - B.V. KOTESWAR RAO VS. STATE OF TELANGANA, 2018 (3) ALT 91 - CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. R.S.R. RAO, 2010 (2) ALD 773 (DB) - PENDING CRIMINAL APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL NOT A GROUND TO DENY RETIREMENT BENEFITS - RETIREMENT BENEFITS TO BE RELEASED WITH INTEREST FROM ACQUITTAL DATE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a staff assistant in a cooperative bank, was punished with withholding of annual increments without cumulative effect in surcharge proceedings. He retired on 30.04.2012. A criminal case was filed against him based on the surcharge proceedings, in which he was acquitted on 05.02.2018. Despite acquittal, his pension and other retirement benefits were not released. He filed a writ petition seeking release of his pension and other retirement benefits.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the pendency of the criminal appeal against the petitioner's acquittal was not a ground to deny him his pension and other retirement benefits. The court relied on the judgment in B.V. Koteswar Rao vs. State of Telangana, 2018 (3) ALT 91, which held that once a criminal court acquits an accused, it amounts to the conclusion of judicial proceedings in the first instance, and appeals against acquittal orders cannot be treated as a continuation of criminal proceedings.
Issues: Whether the pendency of a criminal appeal against the petitioner's acquittal was a ground to deny him his pension and other retirement benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the pendency of the criminal appeal against the petitioner's acquittal was not a ground to deny him his pension and other retirement benefits. The court relied on the judgment in B.V. Koteswar Rao vs. State of Telangana, 2018 (3) ALT 91, which held that once a criminal court acquits an accused, it amounts to the conclusion of judicial proceedings in the first instance, and appeals against acquittal orders cannot be treated as a continuation of criminal proceedings.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to release all the retiral benefits to which the petitioner was entitled as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The petitioner was also entitled to interest @ 10% from the date of acquittal by the Criminal Court till the date of payment.
JUDGMENT :
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
1. Heard Sri Ramalingeswara Rao Kocharlakota, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Heard Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and learned Government Pleader for cooperation and perused the material on record.
3. The petitioner has filed this petition for the following relief:
4. The petitioner worked as a staff assistant in the respondent bank at Chittoor and retired on 30.04.2012 after attaining the age of superannuation. During the petitioner’s service period, some misappropriation of bank funds took place in which the petitioner along with others were issued a surcharge notice dated 02.09.2006 under Section 60(1) of Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act 7 of 1964 and enquiry was conducted under Section 52 of the Act and finally the surcharge order was passed on 26.12.2006, thereby the petitioner was punished with withholding of the annual increments without cumulative effect. The responsibilities were also fixed on some other persons. The petitioner retired on 30.04.2012. Based on the surcharge proceedings, a criminal case bearing C.C. No. 276 of 2007 was filed against the petitioner, in which finally by judgment dated 05.02.2018, the petitioner has been acquitted. The petitioner made a representation for release of his pension and other retirement benefits, but the same has yet not been released.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the petitioner’s acquittal, there is no justification for the authorities not to release the petitioner’s pension. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in the case of B.V. Koteswar Rao vs. State of Telangana, 2018 (3) ALT 91.
6. Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that against the judgment of acquittal dated 05.02.2018 in C.C. No. 276 of 2007, the respondent/petitioner has filed an appeal in CFR No. 3810 of 2018 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Court, Chittoor, which is pending and for that reason, the retirement benefits and pension etc. of the petitioner has not been settled. No other ground has been raised to justify non-release of the petitioner’s pension.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material on record.
8. In B.V. Koteswar Rao (supra), this Court following the Division Bench judgment of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration of Andhra Pradesh vs. R.S.R. Rao, 2010 (2) ALD 773 (DB) has held that insofar as the criminal cases are concerned, the Department has got a right to file an appeal. But, it cannot be said that the judicial proceedings have not been concluded. Once the criminal court acquits that accused, it must amount to be the conclusion of the judicial proceedings in the first
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
