An employee acquitted of criminal charges cannot be deprived of service benefits on account of the pendency of appeal before the High Court.

JUDGMENT

Kuldeep Mathur, J. - A criminal case was lodged against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A read with Section 120-B IPC. The petitioner was acquitted of the charges after facing trial vide judgment dated 25.05.2017, passed by learned Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Cases), Udaipur. The petitioner in the meanwhile stood superannuated from services on 31.03.2016. The Court is apprised that an appeal has been filed against the judgment 25.05.2017 before this Court, which is yet to be decided. It is pleaded that no departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner, however, on account of pendency of appeal against the judgment dated 25.05.2017 due in-service benefits and retiral benefits have been withheld.

2. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Harbans Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. C.W. No. 2460/2007) and Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Jogendra Singh D.B. S.A.W. No. 110/2005 held that on account of pendency of criminal appeal before the High Court, an employee cannot be deprived of service benefits if he had been acquitted of the criminal charges by a competent criminal Court. In the case of Harbans Lal (supra) this Court held as under:-

"By the judgment dated 14.9.2004 passed by the competent court the petitioner has already been acquitted from the charges for which he was tried. After acquittal no reason survives to detain benefits of the petitioner including consideration for grant of salary beyond the subsistence allowance already paid. It is well settled that the order passed by the trial court is final one till its alteration by the appellate court. In the instant matter though an appeal has been filed by the respondents giving challenge to the judgment dated 14.9.2004 but merely on the basis of the pendency of the appeal it cannot be said that acquittal of the petitioner at this stage is not final."

3. In the case of Jogendra Singh (supra), this Court has held as under:-

"In our view, simply because the appeal against the order of acquittal is pending before the appellate court, the respondent cannot be deprived for the retiral benefits."

4. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Chula Ram Heerani v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. C.W. No. 3509/2014 has held as under:-

"Thus, the judicial proceedings stand concluded immediately when a person has been discharged. It is a well settled law that criminal revision filed before the High Court cannot be said to be a continuation of criminal trial or criminal proceedings against an individual within the meaning of Rule 7 of the Pension Rules of 1966, and, therefore, the embargo contained under Rule 90 (1) (c) would be no more applicable once a person has been discharged of the criminal offence. Thus, merely because of pendency of criminal revision or for that matter any appeal against an discharge or acquittal as the case may be, a person cannot be denied regular service benefits."

5. In the view of law enunciated by this Court and facts of the case, the judicial/criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner on filing of charge sheet stood completed resulting in acquittal by the competent criminal Court. Mere pendency of appeal against the judgment of competent criminal court cannot be termed as continuation of criminal trial or judicial proceedings against petitioner within the meaning of Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. Manifestly thus, in-service benefits and retiral benefits cannot be denied to the petitioner on the ground of pendency of criminal appeal against discharge or acquittal.

6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to make proper pay fixation of petitioner and release all retiral benefits including pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc., in favour of the petitioner within a period of four m