JUDGMENT :

Aman Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer made in the present petition is for directing the respondents to release all retiral benefits of the petitioner, alongwith interest.

2. The petitioner, who was working as Director, Animal Husbandry, retired on 31.05.2004, had not been released the retiral benefits due to pendency of appeal against acquittal and there being no disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. Be that as it may, the NOC has now been given by the Department on 04.01.2024, for releasing his entire benefits, as is reflected in para 4 of the short reply dated 15.05.2024.

3. The congruent ground taken in the present case, was found to be fundamentally flawed in Faquir Chand vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP-3177-2009 and Banwari Lal vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP-4032-2009, disposed of vide a common judgment dated 13.11.2009, LPA against which stands dismissed observing that a finding of guilty is a prerequisite for invoking the provisions of the Rules to withhold or discontinue pension or pensionary benefits, an appeal against acquittal, by no means or interpretation, equates to a conviction justifying such deprivation. Relevant paras whereof read thus:

"5. The petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.4032 of 2009 had joined the Government service as Sahayak Patwari and has retired on superannuation on 31.7.2006. The petitioner war implicated for an offence under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He, however, was acquitted of this charge on 27.2.2007. The State has filed a criminal appeal against this order, which is pending before this Court. His pensionary benefits were not released, though no judicial or other proceedings are pending against him as on date. The petitioner made a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal. Principal Secretary, Haryana Government, Revenue Department, has issued a letter on 21.10.2008 directing the Deputy Commissioner to release the retiral benefits of the petitioner but still no action was taken. The petitioner has only been paid his provident fund whereas other retiral benefits have not been paid. He has accordingly filed this writ petition. 6. Here also, there is not much dispute in regard to the factual position and the respondents have justified their action of withholding the pensionary benefits on the ground of pendency of criminal case and it is stated that the decision for payment of pension and gratuity shall be taken after the final decision in the criminal case. It is, however, stated that the petitioner has also been served a charge sheet under Section 7 of the Haryana Punishment and Appeal Rules but the competent authority has taken a decision to pend the matter till final decision of the Court in criminal case. Accordingly, it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to the release of his pensionary benefits.

7. Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, learned counsel for the petitioner has based his arguments primarily on the bare provisions of the Rule. Rule 2.2 of the Rules provides that future good conduct is the implied condition for grant of pension and the competent authority has a right to withhold or withdraw pension if the person is convicted of a serious crime or being guilty of great misconduct. The provisions of Rule 2.2 are as under :-

xxx xxx xxx

8. The learned counsel would term the action of the respondents in withholding his pension to be wholly illegal as pension or pensionary benefits can only be withheld or discontinued upon conviction of a serious crime as is given in Rule 2.2 of the Rules reproduced above. In support of his submission, the counsel has referred to Manohar Singh vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, 2006(2) SCT 103. The Division Bench of this Court while interpreting somewhat similar provision made by Electricity Board, has viewed that action to withhold gratuity etc. can only be invoked where departmental or judicial proceedings are initiated under clause (b) of Rule 2.2 or are continued under clause (1)