ORDER : Claim raised by the petitioner is for grant of ACP benefits and consequently, enhancement of payscale from Rs. 5,000-8,000 to Rs. 6,500-10,500. 2. Heard. 3. Referring to Circular dated 01.05.1973 issued by Government of Bihar, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pendency of the criminal case cannot be a ground for denying benefits under ACP scheme to the petitioner. Moreover, in so far as benefit of 1st ACP is concerned, the claim of the petitioner accrued on 09.08.1999, that is, prior to institution of criminal case on 10.09.2003 and therefore that benefit cannot be withheld. 4. Per contra, the learned State counsel, referring to various paragraphs in the counter-affidavit, submits that the Screening Committee which examined the claim of the petitioner took a decision that during the pendency of the departmental proceeding/criminal proceeding claim for grant of ACP benefits cannot be acceded to. It is contended that a person claiming ACP benefits must also fulfill the conditions for grant of promotion to the higher grade, which the petitioner does not fulfill. 5. The petitioner, who was appointed on 14.02.1984 on the post of Extension Officer, was granted Junior Selection Grade with effect from 01.10.1989 and Senior Selection Grade with effect from 25.07.1994. Thereafter, ACP scheme was introduced and adopted by the State Government. On 10.09.2003, Special Case No. 29 of 2003 was lodged on the allegation of taking bribe. The petitioner was caught red handed taking bribe and he was remanded to judicial custody on 10.09.2003. He was released on bail on 17.11.2003. The respondents have stated that on 29.03.2004, a departmental proceeding was initiated and sanction for prosecution of the petitioner in the criminal case was granted on 05.07.2004. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that 20 similarly situated persons were granted ACP benefits whereas, the claim of the petitioner has been arbitrarily withheld. However, I find that the petitioner has not been able to establish that those 20 persons are similarly situated to the petitioner. It has not been brought on record that other 20 persons were facing criminal charges and against them departmental proceedings are also pending. 7. However, I find that the petitioner has not been able to establish that those 20 persons are similarly situated to the petitioner. It has not been brought on record that other 20 persons were facing criminal charges and against them departmental proceedings are also pending. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that it has been held by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5558 of 2005 that a right of promotion which has accrued prior to institution of the criminal case cannot be denied on the ground of pendency of a criminal case. The present is a case, in my opinion, not of the similar nature. The claim of the petitioner for grant of ACP benefits was considered on 23.12.2006, when Special Case No. 29 of 2003 was already instituted. It is stated that the petitioner, in the meantime, has superannuated from service, however, the departmental proceeding has yet not concluded and the criminal case is also pending trial. Grant of service benefits like, pension, promotion, ACP/MACP etc. is on the condition that the employee shall at all times maintain good conduct and behaviour. Misconduct committed by an employee disentitles him from claiming service benefits. 8. In the light of pending departmental proceeding as well as criminal prosecution of the petitioner for charge of corruption, the decision of the Screening Committee dated 23.12.2006 cannot be faulted. Prayer seeking a direction upon the respondents to grant ACP benefits to the petitioner, cannot be granted, at this stage. However, on conclusion of the departmental enquiry, if the petitioner is exonerated of the charges framed against him and he is finally acquitted in the criminal case, his claim for grant of ACP benefits can be considered, in accordance with law. 9. The writ petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.