1

Court No. - 6

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1147 of 2018

Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Tripathi

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddhartha Kumar Mishra,Shree Prakash

Giri

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.B. Yadav,

learned Standing Counsel representing the State respondents.

This petition impugns an order pursuant to which the claim of

the petitioner for grant of ACP benefits have been refused by the

respondents placing reliance upon the provisions of the Government

Order dated 5 November 2014. By way of an amendment, the

petitioner has additionally laid challenge to the said Government

Order. The relevant clause of the Government Order dated 5

November 2014 reads thus:

(14) यदिदि क िकिसी क किमरचारी क किे क िविरुद्ध क अनुशानानात्मकि क किायदरविाही क/

आपरािधिकि ककिायदरविाही कप्रचलन कमे कहो कतो कए.सी. पी. किी कव्यदविस्था क ककिे

अंतगरत किवित्तीयद क कस्तरोन्नयदन ककिे कलाभ ककिी कअनुमन्यदता कअंितम करूप कसे

िनणरयद कहोने कतथा कस्थिगत करहेगी। कअंितम किनणरयद ककिे कउपरांत किनदिोष कपाए

जाने ककिी कदिशा कमे कअनुमन्यदता ककिे किदिनांकि कसे किवित्तीयद कस्तरोन्नयदन ककिा कलाभ

दिेयद कहोगा कपरन्तु कदिोषी कपाए कजाने ककिी कदिशा कमे कस्क्रीिनंग ककिमेटी कद्वारा ककिािमरकि

2

किो किदिए कगए कदिंड कपर किविचारोपरांत कदिेयदता ककिे कसम्बन्धि कमे कसंस्तुित ककिी

जायदेगी। कस्क्रीिनंग ककिमेटी ककिी कसंस्तुितयदों कपर किनयदुिक्ति कप्रािधिकिारी कद्वारा

िनणरयद किलयदा कजाएगा। क"

The controversy itself arises on account of the petitioner being

named as an accused and facing trial in Sessions Trial No. 353 of

2001. The said criminal case is pending before the competent Court as

on date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

further proceedings in that Sessions Trial have been stayed on account

of an interlocutory order passed in Criminal Revision No. 449 of 2011.

In view thereof, it was contended that no legal impediment existed for

the grant of ACP benefits. Additionally it was submitted that the

Government Order dated 28 May 1997 makes appropriate provisions

for the grant of benefits to employees during the pendency of a

criminal case. It was lastly urged that the denial of ACP benefits

without following the procedure of initiation of disciplinary

proceedings is arbitrary.

None of the submissions advanced, in the considered view of

this Court, takes the case of the petitioner any further. At the very

outset, it is relevant to note that the order staying further proceedings

in the Sessions Trial have not been passed on a revision preferred by

the petitioner. The revision appears to have been preferred and

instituted by another accused. Even if the submission of the learned

counsel for the petitioner that there is a stay of criminal proceedings is

3

accepted, it is evident that the interlocutory order would not result in

quashing of criminal proceedings so as to enable this Court to

conclude that the proceedings of the Sessions Trial no longer exist in

the eyes of law. The reliance placed on the Government Order dated 28

May 1997 is clearly misplaced since the same relates to the sealed

cover procedure to be followed in the case of promotions. It does not

deal with the grant of ACP benefits. The submission that disciplinary

proceedings have not been initiated also does not impress this Court

since the relevant clause of the Government Order dated 5 November

2014 fundamentally provides for the refusal of the release of these

benefits during the pendency of the criminal trial and further postulates

that the same shall be liable to be released in case the employee is

ultimately exonerated from the date when the benefit accrued.

Accordingly the challenge laid in this petition fails and it is dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner then orally contended that

although he was initially suspended on account of being named as an

accused in the criminal case, thi