JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Sudhir Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Shrawan Kumar Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed a supplementary affidavit today after serving a copy on the learned counsel for the State-respondents and the same is taken on record.

3. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner prays for the following reliefs which reads as under :-

“(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash/set-aside the impugned order/letter No. Sa-96/2021 dated 31.01.2022 issued by the respondent no. 3 i.e. Superintendent of Police Orai at District Jalaun.

(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the respondents to pay/allow the gratuity with interest to the petitioner.”

4. The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order dated 31.01.2022 whereby the gratuity of the petitioner has been withheld on the ground of pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable on 01.02.1982 by the Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad. The petitioner after completing a service of 39 years 11 months and 23 days has retired on 31.01.2022. It is also the case of the petitioner that during his service tenure, he was awarded with cash rewards and was also appreciated for his services and no case for any embezzlement or causing harm or loss to the Government was initiated or is pending against the petitioner, during his entire service tenure.

5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a case bearing No. 207 of 2005 came to be lodged against the petitioner on 29.06.2005 under Sections 307/332/333/504/506/120-B I.P.C. in respect of an alleged incident which occurred on 29.06.2005. It is urged that the said case is still pending and on account of the said pendency, the gratuity of the petitioner has been withheld. It is also urged that the petitioner has been falsely implicated, inasmuch as, on the alleged date of the incident, i.e. on 29.06.2005, the petitioner was on duty and was not at the alleged site of the incident and to buttress the aforesaid submissions, he has also brought on record the documents in the shape of Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 with the writ petition.

6. By drawing the attention of the Court to the supplementary affidavit indicating the anomalies in the trial of Case No. 207 of 2005, it is urged that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and there is no fault of the petitioner despite the same the matter is pending since more than 16 years and the aforesaid information was always available with the police department, yet, no departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner on this count till retirement.

7. It is also urged that there is no justification for withholding the gratuity of the petitioner especially when the Authorities themselves did not find that the petitioner was guilty of any serious offence or crime nor the alleged case no. 207 of 2005 prompted the respondent-authorities to institute any departmental proceedings against the petitioner and now when that he has retired, it is not lawful for the respondents to have withheld the gratuity which is against the settled legal principles as enunciated by a Full Bench decision of this Court in the Case of Shiv Gopal and Others Vs. State of U.P. 2019 (5) ADJ (441) (FB). The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon a decision in the case of Uday Narayan Ojha Vs. State of U.P. and others; 2020 (6) AWC 5502. and Devendra Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others; 2021 (0) Supreme 1154 Allahabad.

8. On the strength of the aforesaid decisions, it is urged that the impugned order dated 31.01.2022 whereby the gratuity has been withheld is bad and as such a direction be issued to release the withhe