JUDGMENT :

1. The question which falls for consideration before this court in the present is whether the government servant is entitled for full pension and gratuity where criminal proceedings are pending against him?

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Wireless Operator in the Department of the Wireless, Police, Mahanagar, Lucknow on 16.6.1979 and has superannuated from the post of Principal/Head Wireless Operator one 31.3.2019. During his service a first information report was lodged against him in Case Crime No.249/1998 under sections-417/467/468/471/218 IPC at Police Station, Mahanagar, Lucknow. The chargesheet has been filed in the said case on 29.01.2000 and the trial is in progress.

3. Subsequent to the lodging of the first information report the petitioner was suspended from service and disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against him which were concluded in favour of the petitioner where he was exonerated, and the order of suspension was revoked on 10.09.2004.

4. That subsequent to his retirement it has been submitted that no disciplinary proceeding are pending against him, but by means of the impugned orders the respondents have withheld the regular pension and gratuity on account of the fact that the criminal case is pending against him.

5. In support of his submissions the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgement of this court rendered by coordinate bench of this court in the case of Udai Naraian Ojha vs. State of U.P. and others Writ - A No. 27391 of 2012 delivered on 02.11.2020.

6. It was submitted that in the case of Udai Narayan Ojha (supra), the petitioner therein had superannuated on 31.12.2011 from the post of Assistant Sub Inspector in U.P. Police and a criminal case was lodged against him in 2007 under section 409 IPC which was pending investigation. Subsequently the charge sheet was filed on 20.4.2013 subsequent to his superannuation and the opposite parties had withheld his gratuity. The court had considered the question:-

“whether the amount of gratuity payable to retired employee of state could be withheld merely on account of pendency of criminal investigation against him at the time of retirement. The connected issue is whether the charge sheet filed against the petitioner, subsequently, would justify withholding of gratuity even if the charges relate to a period which date back to more than 4 years from the date of superannuation?”

7. The Single Judge after considering the Full Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 40 of 2017 (Shivagopal Versus State of U.P. and four others) decided on 08.05.2019, as well as provisions of Article 351/351A and the Civil Services Regulations and allowed the writ petition after recording the following :-

“8. The power of State to withhold pension and gratuity, therefore, must be exercised strictly as per the applicable law and if the State action is not found to be in consonance with it, the withholding of gratuity would violate Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The denial of such constitutional right, therefore, would be liable to be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. Even otherwise, the period of 4 years is a reasonable period from the date of the event, leading to submission of charge-sheet and the employee cannot be made to suffer for any un-explained or undue delay on the part of the State or the investigating agency. It is, otherwise, not shown by the respondents that such delay was attributed to any act or omission on part of the petitioner. The right 9 of State to proceed in accordance with law, is otherwise available by virtue of Article 351 of Civil Services Regulations if the charges are found proved in judicial proceedings and the public interest also would not be adversely affected, if the gratuity due is paid to the government servant. In view of the above discussions, this Court has no hesitation in holding t