The main legal point established in the judgment is that the release of retirement benefits is a necessary corollary to acquittal, and in the absence of any specific order withholding benefits, the department had no grounds to deny the benefits.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Borana, J. - The present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:

"(i) By an appropriate order or directions, the respondents be directed to grant increment to the petitioner during the period of suspension i.e. from 21.06.2003 (Annex. 1) to 29.07.2007 (Annex. 3) with all consequential benefits.

(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondents be directed to grant all retiral dues to the petitioner including the gratuity, commutation, regular pension, etc to the petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that prayer No. (i) as prayed for in the writ petition has already been taken care of as vide order dated 02.11.2007, the suspension period of the petitioner had been directed to be included in his service period and the increments in pursuance to the same had also been directed to be granted to the petitioner.

3. Therefore, the only issue which now remains in the present writ petition is regarding prayer No. (ii), that is, the retiral benefits including gratuity, commutation and regular pension. As submitted by the counsel, the same have wrongly been denied to the petitioner on the ground of a criminal appeal (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 756/2007) being pending against him before this Court.

4. In support of his submissions, counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13716/2018; Chandra Shekhar Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. decided on 29.03.2022. In Chandra Shekhar Sharma's case, this Court while relying upon the earlier judgments of this Court passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2153/2012; Tarachand Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., decided on 12.03.2014 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4542/2009; Ganpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 13.02.2015 concluded as under:

"In view of the submissions made, it is clear on record that the petitioner has been acquitted and after the said order of acquittal by a competent Court having become final, the release of the retirement benefits is a necessary corollary."

5. This Court further held as under:

"A perusal of the record shows that no specific order of withholding any benefits, whether retiral or other benefits has been passed by the Department at any point of time. It has also been admitted on record that no departmental inquiry is pending against the petitioner as of date. It is clear on record that the order of suspension was passed only on the basis of a criminal proceedings being registered against him and he being arrested qua the same. As the petitioner has now been acquitted, no ground whatsoever survives with the respondent Department to withhold the retiral dues of the petitioner."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was acquitted of the charges levelled under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide judgment dated 24.03.2007. After the said acquittal, his suspension was also revoked vide order dated 29.07.2007 and he superannuated on 30.09.2007. Therefore, there was no occasion for denying the benefits to him after his retirement as on the date of his retirement, no criminal proceeding was pending against him.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties.

8. This Court is of the clear opinion that once the petitioner stood acquitted on 24.03.2007 and the Department itself regularized his period of suspension in the month of November 2007 (although subject to the decision of the appeal), there was no occasion for the Department to deny the retiral benefits to the petitioner after the year 2007. However, no grievance regarding the same was raised till the year 2010. It was only for the first time in the year 2010 that a representation was submitted by the petitioner to the Department regarding his retiral benefits.

9. In view of the ratio as laid down in the case of Chandra Shekhar Sharma v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. and in view of