In the absence of specific provisions empowering the employer to withhold the pension of an employee, the same cannot be withheld, especially after the employee has been acquitted from criminal charges.

ORDER : – This petition is heard finally.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is not challenging any specific order, but seeking a direction for issuance of writ of mandamus for the respondents to finalize his case of retiral dues and be paid to him expeditiously.

3. The crisp and short facts of the case are that the petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation stood retired from service on 30-11-2001, but on the date of retirement, since the petitioner was facing a criminal trial i.e. Special Case No. 12/1997 in connection with Crime No. 122/1996 for an offence under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2), section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code registered against the petitioner, therefore, his retiral dues could not be finalized. However, the trial Court vide order dated 5-11-2004 (Annexure-P/7), acquitted the petitioner from the charge levelled against him. Thereafter, against the said order of acquittal, the State preferred an appeal before the High Court which got registered as Criminal Appeal No. 842/2005, State of M. P. vs. Madan Lal Mittal, which is yet to be finally adjudicated. After making unflagging requests, when the petitioner’s retiral dues were not settled, then left with no option, he filed the instant petition.

4. Mr. Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that presently the petitioner is getting only anticipatory pension, but his other retiral dues are withheld by respondents. He submits that the petitioner made various representations before the Authority for getting his retiral dues, but all went in vain. He further submits that mere pendency of an appeal that too against the petitioner’s acquittal order, does not confer any right on the respondents to withhold his retiral dues and as such, the action on the part of the respondents/Authority is completely arbitrary and illegal.

5. Per contra, Mr. Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents/State while relying upon the reply filed on behalf of the respondents/State, has submitted that since the appeal against the petitioner’s acquittal order is sub judice before the Court, therefore, his retiral dues are not finalized.

6. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Indisputably, the petitioner was acquitted from the charge levelled against him and during pendency of trial and even after its conclusion, the respondents/Authority did not initiate any departmental proceeding against him. The petitioner since retired on attaining the age of superannuation, there is no provision under the rules to withhold his post retiral benefits due to pendency of criminal appeal, therefore, in the circumstance, the petitioner is entitled to get his post retiral dues.

8. The reply filed on behalf of the respondents merely depicts a simple stand that since against the petitioner’s acquittal order a criminal appeal is sub judice before the Court, therefore, he is not entitled to get his post retiral dues. Learned Panel Lawyer during the course of arguments failed to show any rule as to under which provision, the respondents are empowered to withhold the pension or gratuity amount of the employee even in absence of any finding against him either in the departmental or judicial proceedings. At this juncture, it is apposite to see the provisions of Rule 45-A of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (in short the ‘Rules, 1976’), which provide as to under which circumstances, a Government Servant can be debarred from receiving the gratuity. Rule 45-A of the Rules, 1976 reads as under : –

“45-A. Debarring a person from receiving gratuity. – (1) If a person, who in the event of death of a Government servant while in service is eligible to receive gratuity in terms of Rule 45 is charged with the offence of murdering the Government servant or f