JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing order dated 15.02.2010 issued under the signature of respondent No. 2, by which the 1st ACP granted vide order No. 59 dated 05.06.2006 corresponding to memo No. 1030 dated 06.06.2006 has unilaterally sought to be cancelled with further stipulation to recover the differential amounts already paid to petitioner in pursuance of monetary promotion, without prior notice/show-cause and thus, the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. Further prayer has been made to restore the 1st level ACP as granted vide order dated 05.06.2006 (Annexure-1) and further not to recover any amount legitimately paid to him in pursuance to the aforesaid order. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Labour Enforcement Officer (for short “LEO”) through Subordinate Service Selection Examination Committee/Board and as such, he joined at Kanke Block, Ranchi on 11.08.1983. Subsequently, he was transferred to Namkum as LEO in December, 1989 and started discharging his duties to the satisfaction of all concerned. It is stated that thereafter, petitioner was transferred to Khalgaon, Bhagalpur in May, 1995 and again to Ranchi on 12.11.2000, where he gave his joining before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ranchi on 14.11.2000, which was duly accepted followed by his posting on the post of LEO, Ranchi Sadar. It is categorically stated that right from his appointment/joining/entry into the service w.e.f. 11.08.1983 to 02.05.2001, there was no complain or adverse remarks against the petitioner. 4. It is further stated that while he was discharging his duty as LEO, Ranchi Sadar to the satisfaction of all concerned, all of a sudden, he was arrested by the Vigilance Police on 02.05.2001 in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 6 of 2001, on the alleged charges of demanding illegal gratification, which was false and frivolous. After his arrest, the petitioner was immediately granted bail by Order of this Court and he was immediately reinstated in service and posted thereof as LEO, Chanho, Ranchi. It is the further case of the petitioner that he discharged his duty to the satisfaction of all concerned as LEO, Chanho and therefore, his case was considered for benefit of ACP as per the policy decision dated 14.07.2002. It is the further case of the petitioner that he discharged his duty to the satisfaction of all concerned as LEO, Chanho and therefore, his case was considered for benefit of ACP as per the policy decision dated 14.07.2002. After thorough investigation, enquiry and screening of entire service records particularly, the period between 1983 to 1999, he was found fit for grant of benefit of 1st level ACP and the same was granted to him vide office order No. 59 dated 05.06.2006, issued under the signature of the then Labour Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi followed by revision of his pay-scale in Rs.6500-10500/- from existing pay-scale of Rs.5000-9000 w.e.f. 09.08.1999. 5. It is stated that in pursuance to the aforesaid revision of pay-scale, he started drawing the corresponding revised salary besides payment of arrears for the intervening period w.e.f. 15.11.2000. It is also stated that while the petitioner was drawing the aforesaid revised salary as per grant of 1st level ACP promotion as aforesaid at Chanho, he was transferred to Chandwa within the district of Latehar in the month of September, 2008, where he is still continuing on the post of LEO and discharging his duties. While he was posted at Chandwa, the impugned order dated 15.02.2010 was issued, which was without any prior notice or show-cause or opportunity of explanation regarding the illegal grant of ACP and recovery of the amount. Hence, the petitioner has preferred this writ application challenging the order dated 15.02.2010. 6. Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the order dated 15.02.2010, issued by the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The order itself is dehors the rules. Learned counsel submits that under no stretch of imagination, the order of recovery could have been passed in view of the fact that petitioner was granted benefit of ACP prior to the lodging of FIR. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was entitled for the benefits of ACP of the period 11.08.1983 to 09.08.1999, which was granted to him on 05.06.2006 with retrospective effect and as such, the period, which he rendered for grant of financial benefits accrued to him in view of the ACP, was much prior to the lodging of the FIR on 02.05.2001. 7. 7. Learned counsel also submits that without any prior notice or show-cause, no recovery could have been done and as such, the said recovery is against the cardinal principles of natural justice. Learned counsel also draws the attention of the Court towards Annexure-5, which clearly shows that even in case of pending criminal proceeding, if the said proceeding is not dispensed with or culminated within a period of two years, the benefits either for promotion or for financial up-gradation, cannot be withhold and as such, the order dated 15.02.2010 is not tenable in the eyes of law. 8. On the other hand, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. R.K. Shahi, JC to learned AAG submits that in view of the fact that a criminal case is still pending against the petitioner arising out of the FIR lodged by the Vigilance, the petitioner could not have been granted the benefit and if at all it was granted, it was illegal in the eyes of law and as such, stand of the respondent is fully justified in passing order dated 15.02.2010. There is no illegality in the impugned order and as such, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount should not be withheld or the petitioner is entitled for the benefit ACP, is not at all sustainable and rightly the same has ordered to be recovered. 9. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. The petitioner had rendered an unblemished service during the period 11.08.1983 to 09.08.1999 and hence, was entitled for the 1st ACP. The respondent-authorities vide their own notification dated 20.11.2008, relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.V. Janakiraman, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 , have come out with a circular that if the criminal case is not culminated within a period of two years, the employees cannot be disentitled from the benefits which accrued to them for any promotion or financial up-gradation. K.V. Janakiraman, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 , have come out with a circular that if the criminal case is not culminated within a period of two years, the employees cannot be disentitled from the benefits which accrued to them for any promotion or financial up-gradation. In the instant case, the benefits accrued to the petitioner was prior to the lodging of the Vigilance Case and as such, there was no occasion for the respondents to cancel the benefits which has already been provided and which accrued to the petitioner. Accordingly, no order of recovery could have been passed. 10. As such the order dated 15.02.2010 (Annexure-2) is not tenable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are stopped from making any recovery in view of any FIR lodged on 02.05.2001 and the benefits already accrued to the petitioner cannot be recalled. 11. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, judicial pronouncements, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.