JUDGMENT Mr. Ajay Tewari, J. (Oral):- By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order with-holding some of his retiral benefits on the ground that the daughter-in-law of the petitioner has lodged an FIR under Sections 406/506 of the IPC. 2. The petitioner joined service on 10.3.1992 and retired on 31.12.2010. Prior to that, he had served in the Indian Army. About a year before his retirement, his daughter-in-law lodged FIR No.90, dated 8.2.2009, under Sections 406/506 of the IPC, at Police Station Sadar Gurdaspur, alleging that after the death of her husband she had been thrown out of the matrimonial home. 3. In reply, it has been admitted that it is because of the registration of the aforementioned FIR, part retiral benefits of the petitioner have been with-held. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (P&H), [2011(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1829] : 2011(3) PLR 584, wherein this Court held as follows :- “3. It is common case of the parties that criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, while he was in service. From the nature of offences mentioned in FIR for which the petitioner has been charged, it is evident that the offences are unrelated to the service of the petitioner. Neither there is any claim of causing loss to the Govt. nor there is any case for service misconduct against the petitioner. Even the suspension was on account of registration of the criminal case. The petitioner stands reinstated; There was no adverse order against the petitioner till the date of his retirement. Rule 2.2 (b) reads as under:- 2.2)(b) The Government further reserves to themselves the right to withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and right of ordering the recovery from the pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government. If in a departmental or judicial proceedings, the petitioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon reemployment after retirement.’ A reading thereof clearly indicates that the disciplinary authority, consequent upon the result of the departmental or judicial proceedings, should record a finding whether the delinquent has committed grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including the service rendered upon reemployment after retirement.’ 4. From the bare reading of above provision, it appears that the Govt. has power to withheld or withdraw pension or order of recovery from the Govt. employee only if, departmental proceedings or criminal proceedings are pending in respect to grave misconduct or negligence and where there is an apprehension of loss caused to the Govt. as a consequence of such misconduct or negligence. In the present case there is no such circumstance nor there is any allegation of causing loss to the Govt. Mere pendency of the criminal proceedings is not sufficient to withhold the retiral benefits of the petitioner in any manner particularly when the judicial proceedings are unrelated to the service misconduct of the petitioner.” 5. Counsel for the respondents has not been able to cite any contrary judgment. 6. Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release all the retiral benefits to the petitioner within two months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 8% from the date/s the amount/s fell due till the date of actual payment. No costs. --------------------