The mere pendency of an appeal against acquittal does not justify withholding retiral benefits, as established by the court's interpretation of relevant pension rules.

ORDER :

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.

1. By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing direction to the respondents to release the retiral dues of the petitioner.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner stood retired on 30.04.2010, after attaining the age of superannuation. Counsel submits that prior to the retirement of the petitioner, a criminal case under Section 7, 13 (1)(d)(ii) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) was registered against him, wherein, he faced trial before the Court of Sessions Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.04/2003 and was acquitted vide judgment dated 27.07.2007. Counsel submits that a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short ‘the Rules of 1958’) was served upon the petitioner dated 14.12.2004, but subsequently, the same was dropped by the respondents vide order dated 18.09.2007. Counsel submits that the petitioner was acquitted in the year 2007 in the criminal case, and the departmental charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was also dropped in the year 2007, much prior to the retirement of petitioner. Hence, under these circumstances, the respondents are not justified in withholding the rightful claim of the petitioner to get retiral dues. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, appropriate directions be issued to the respondents for releasing the retiral dues of the petitioner forthwith, without any further delay.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that a criminal case under Section 7/13 of the Act of 1988 was lodged against the petitioner and that is why, the charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 was served upon him in the year 2004. Counsel submits that the petitioner was acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case by the Special Judge while giving him benefit of doubt, against which the State has preferred a Criminal Appeal before this Court which is lying pending for adjudication. Counsel submits that provisional pension has already been granted to the petitioner and the payment of leave encashment has also been released in favour of the petitioner. Counsel submits that unless and until the Appeal, against acquittal of the petitioner, is decided by this Court, the petitioner is not entitled to get other retiral dues, hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

5. A conjoint reading of Rule 7 and Rule 90(c) of the Rules of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules of 1996’) reveals that if any judicial proceeding is pending against a delinquent employee, the gratuity can be withheld and only provisional pension can be released.

6. This fact is not in dispute that a criminal case under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) and 13(2) of the Act of 1988 was pending against the petitioner prior to his retirement, but he was acquitted of all the charges by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 27.07.2007. Indisputably, respondent-State has assailed the aforesaid judgment before the Appellate Court by way of filing an appeal and the said appeal is still pending for consideration before the Appellate Court. This fact is also undisputed that after acquittal, the petitioner has retired from service on 30.04.2010 upon attaining the age of superannuation.

7. For reading reference Rule 7 and 90 of the Rules of 1996 are reproduced as under:

"7. Right of Governor to withhold or withdraw pension

(1) The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or part thereof, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensi