Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Heard Sri Gopal Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.C. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Supplementary-affidavit filed by the petitioner today is taken on record.

3. As the facts are not much in dispute, therefore, I do not find any need to call for a counter-affidavit from the respondents.

4. The moot question which falls for consideration in this case is as to whether the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffar Nagar was empowered to withhold the payment of gratuity to the petitioner, temporarily, on account of the pendency of a criminal case against him, if so, whether the exercise of such power was valid.

5. The petitioner herein retired from Government Service as Sub Inspector in the U.P. Police Department. While in service an FIR was lodged on 28.5.1999 under Section 392 IPC against two unknown persons. Subsequently, an investigation in the matter was ordered by the Circle Officer, who is said to have submitted a report exonerating the petitioner from any involvement in the incident relating to the said FIR. However, the Investigating Officer, who was of the rank of Sub Inspector filed a charge-sheet in a Court of criminal jurisdiction naming him as one of the accused. The said proceedings before the Court concerned were challenged before this High Court by means of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., whereupon, the same were stayed by the order dated 24.7.2001. The criminal proceedings remained stayed till the said application was dismissed on 15.3.2011. The petitioner retired from service on 31.10.2014. Prior to his retirement the impugned order dated 2.9.2014 was passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffar Nagar, sanctioning the grant/release of post retiral benefits, except the gratuity, which was withheld on account of pendency of Case Crime No. 49 of 1999 under Section 392 IPC in district Farrukhabad.

6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Bhagwati Prasad Verma’s case, the gratuity could not be withheld. Moreover, he submits that considering the facts of the criminal case it is highly unlikely that the same will result in his conviction, therefore, a mechanical order of withholding of gratuity was not warranted, the concerned authority ought to have considered the facts of the case before passing such an order. He especially referred to the report of the Circle Officer annexed with the supplementary-affidavit filed today, wherein, it was held that the petitioner was not at all involved in the said incident, but, surprisingly an Officer of lower rank, who was the Investigating Officer, submitted the charge-sheet against him before the Court of competent jurisdiction. He further submitted that assuming the charges levelled against him are ultimately found to be true, they do not constitute any pecuniary loss having been caused to the State warranting stopping or recovery of the same under the relevant provisions.

7. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that gratuity cannot be paid to the petitioner in view of the provisions contained in Article 919(A) of the Civil Service Regulation as considered and explained by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 1278 of 2013 as the said provision empowers the competent authority to withheld the same during the pendency of judicial proceedings.

8. Regulation 919(A) of the Civil Service Regulations reads as under :

“919-A. (1) In case referred to in Regulation 351-AA the Head of Department may authorise the provisional pension equal to the maximum pension which would have been admissible on the basis of qualifying service upto the date of retirement of the Government servant or if he was under suspension on the date of retirement upto the date immediately preceding the date on which he was placed under suspension.

(2) The provisional pension shall be authorised for the period com