Withholding of pension and gratuity due to pending criminal proceedings is unconstitutional when departmental charges are dropped and no substantial justification is provided.

ORDER :

1. Since the issue raised in both these writ petitions is connected with each other and the petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same, these two writ petitions are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

2. W.P.No.38800 of 2012 is filed to declare the action of respondent No.1 in rejecting the petitioner’s request for regularization of suspension period as ‘on duty’ vide Order in Roc No.1105/2011, C.4(Con), dated 25.10.2012 as being arbitrary, irregular discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension from 01.11.2006 to 01.11.2011 as ‘on duty’ for all purposes including increments, pay fixation etc., on the analogy of the orders passed in respect of similarly placed employees vide order Dis.No.7233/PR No.71/06/ADM/DCK, dated 07.09.2011, by respondent No.2.

3. W.P.No.15640 of 2024 is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the retirement Gratuity and full pension to the petitioner on the ground of pendency of C.C.No.53 of 2007 on the file of learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases at Karimnagar, even though disciplinary proceedings were dropped for the same set of charges, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for release of Gratuity in terms of G.O.Rt No.1097, Finance and Planning Department, dated 22.06.2000 and to release full pension, without reference to ACB case in C.C.No.53 of 2007 on the file of learned Special Judge for SPE. AND ACB cases at Karimnagar by following Rule 9 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, with all consequential benefits.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Reader in the year 1984 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant in the year 1990. While he was working as Junior Assistant at Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Karimnagar, respondent No.2 placed him under suspension, vide order Dis. No.6917/PR.71/ADM/DCK/2006, dated 13.11.2006 on the ground of alleged involvement in a criminal case registered under Sections 466 , 468, 471 and 420 read withSection120 of I.P.C.

5. Sri Nayakawadi Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.1 after conducting detailed enquiry levelled against the petitioner and eight others, has dropped the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner herein vide Roc No.1908/2005-Vigilance Cell, dated 25.04.2011. He further submitted that pursuant to the said order, petitioner made a representation to respondent No.1 to revoke the order of suspension. Respondent No.1 after considering the representation of the petitioner, came to conclusion that there is no justificationt o continue the suspension order passed against the petitioner, as such the suspension order was revoked and he was reinstated into service subject to result of criminal case, beside observing that his claim for sanction of benefits and the suspension period can be regulated subject to the final orders to be passed in the criminal case, vide ROC No.1105/2011.C.4 (Con), dated 27.09.2011 and he was posted as Junior Assistant in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Vemulawada. Consequent upon his reinstatement, petitioner made a representation to treat the period of suspension as spent ‘on duty’. Respondent No.1 after considering the same, rejected the said representation vide Roc No.1105/2011.C.4(Con.), dated 25.10.2012, stating that “Though the appellant was exonerated from the charges, he was reinstated into service only after the orders of the High Court on his representation duly observing the regularization of suspension period shall be subject to outcome of the criminal case. Hence it is premature to consider the request of the appellant. Accordingly, the representation of the individual is rejected.” Which is subject matter before this Court.

6. It is further cont