JUDGMENT Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri K.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H.C. Pathak, learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 2. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23rd July, 2013 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad withholding the regular pension of the petitioner, who is a retired Constable in Civil Police, the present writ petition has been filed. The regular pension of the petitioner has been withheld on the ground that a Case Crime No. 28 of 2009 under Section 224/223 IPC, P.S. Fatehgarh is pending against him and thus, regular pension cannot be granted till conclusion of the criminal case, which is a judicial proceeding. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his pension cannot be withheld on this ground. 4. Learned Standing counsel submits that in view of the provisions of Article 351-A and Article 351-AA of the Civil Services Regulations and also the law laid down in a Division Bench judgement of this Court in State of U.P. and two others Jai Prakash, 2014(1) ADJ 207 (DB) decided on 17th December, 2013, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgement dated 7th October, 2015 passed by Learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 66620 of 2014 (Shiv Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and three others) and contended that until there is a financial loss caused to the State the retiral dues of the petitioner cannot be withheld. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 7. I find no force in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is undisputed that an accused escaped from the custody of the petitioner and a Criminal Case being Case Crime No. 28 of 2009 under Section 224/223 IPC, P.S. Fatehgarh was registered against him and criminal trial is still pending. A departmental proceeding has also initiated against him and the punishment as provided under Rule-8 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991 was inflicted on him. Rule-8 of the Rules 1991 provides as under: “8. Dismissal and removal.—(1) No Police Officer shall be dismissed or removed from service by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. Rule-8 of the Rules 1991 provides as under: “8. Dismissal and removal.—(1) No Police Officer shall be dismissed or removed from service by an authority subordinate to the appointing authority. (2) No Police Officer shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after proper inquiry and disciplinary proceedings as contemplated by these rules: Provided that this rule shall not apply— (a) Where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has hed to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (b) Where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry; or (c) Where the Government is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such enquiry. (3) All orders of dismissal and removal of Head Constables or Constables shall be passed by the Superintendent of Police. Cases in which the Superintendent of Police recommends dismissal or removal of a Sub-Inspector or an Inspector shall be forwarded to the Deputy Inspector General concerned for orders. (4) (a) The punishment for intentionally or negligently allowing a person in police custody or judicial custody to escape shall be dismissal unless the punishing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing awards a lessor punishment. (b) Every officer convicted by the Court for an offence involving moral turpitude shall be dismissed unless the punishing authority for reasons to be recorded in writing considers it otherwise.” Sub-rule (4) clause (a) of Rule-8 of the Rules 1991 clearly provides the penalty of dismissal and removal from service if a police officer intentionally or negligently allowing a person in police custody or judicial custody to escape. However, it has been further provided in the said Rules that for reasons to be recorded in writing lessor punishment can be awarded. The petitioner shall be awarded lessor punishment after recording evidence. 8. However, it has been further provided in the said Rules that for reasons to be recorded in writing lessor punishment can be awarded. The petitioner shall be awarded lessor punishment after recording evidence. 8. Article 351-A and Article 351-AA of the Civil Service Regulations provides as under: “351-A. The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or Judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement: Provided that — (a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment - (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor. (ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before the institution of such proceeding; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place or places as the Governor may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order of dismissal from service may be made. (b) Judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty either before retirement or during re-employment, shall have been instituted in accordance with sub-clause (ii) of clause (a); and (c) the Public Service Commission, U.P. shall be consulted before final orders are passed. [Provided further that of the order passed by the Governor relates to a cash dealt with under the Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary Proceedings, (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947, it shall not be necessary to consult Public Service Commission]. [Provided further that of the order passed by the Governor relates to a cash dealt with under the Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary Proceedings, (Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947, it shall not be necessary to consult Public Service Commission]. Explanation—For the purposes of this article - (a) Departmental proceeding shall be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed against the pensioner are issued to him or, if the officer has been placed under suspension from and earlier date, on such date ; and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted : (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which complaint is made, or a charge-sheet is submitted, to a criminal Court; and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date on which the plaint is presented or, as the case may be, an application is made to a Civil Court. 351-AA. In the case of a Government Servant who retires on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or Judicial proceedings or any enquiry by Administrative Tribunal is pending on the date of retirement or is to be instituted after retirement a provisional pension as provided in Article 919-A may be sanctioned.” 9. In view of the afore-quoted provisions of Article 351-A, it cannot be disputed that the Government has a right of withholding or withdrawing pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and may also recover from pension the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or Judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement. 10. The aforesaid provisions of Article 351-A is not confined only to the cases where a pensioner caused pecuniary loss to the State Government. The said provisions also cover cases where in an departmental or Judicial proceeding pensioner has been found guilty of grave misconduct. 11. In the case of Jai Prakash (supra) Division Bench has upheld the order of the Superintendent of Police, Etah withholding the payment of gratuity until conclusion of criminal trial. However, it was observed that provisional pension would be payable. 12. 11. In the case of Jai Prakash (supra) Division Bench has upheld the order of the Superintendent of Police, Etah withholding the payment of gratuity until conclusion of criminal trial. However, it was observed that provisional pension would be payable. 12. It has been held in catena of decisions of this Court that the pension cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a criminal case unless the charges are very grave in nature. In Special Appeal Defective No. 416 of 2014, State of U.P. and three others v. Faini Singh, decided on 25th April, 2014, a Division Bench of this Court held in para-21 as under: “21. We may point out that a mere pendency of any judicial proceeding cannot be a ground to exercise the powers under Article 351AA read with Regulation 919A for withholding the retiral dues. The nature of allegations and the gravity of charge has to be taken into consideration by the competent authority before making an order to withhold the retiral dues. In case the pendency of any judicial proceeding is held to be sufficient, a minor offence or even a parking ticket may be a ground to withhold the pension of a retired employee. Such a situation is not contemplated under the powers conferred on the competent authority under the Civil Services Regulations.” 13. Since, undisputedly the petitioner was found guilty of misconduct and major punishment was awarded to him under Rule-8 of the Act 1991 and Judicial proceedings in a criminal case is still pending against him and as such, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. 14. The writ petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 15. In result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. ———————