Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 720 (MP)

RANGLAL KUSHWAHA v. STATE OF M. P.

2021-11-09

PURUSHAINDRA KAURAV

body2021
ORDER/JUDGMENT – Shri Anoop Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Deshmukh, P. L. for respondents/State. Heard. 2. The petitioner has been superannuated from the post of Naib Tehsildar by order dated 19-5-1995 (Annx.P/1). A criminal case was registered against him and by judgment dated 14-11-2014 passed in Criminal Case No. 1848/1995 by JMFC, he was convicted and sentenced for various offences. Against the said judgment of conviction and sentence, petitioner preferred Cr. A. No. 1205/2014 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal. The learned appellate Court by judgment dated 30-4-2016, allowed the appeal and acquitted him. Against the judgment of acquittal, State of Madhya Pradesh preferred Cr. R. No. 3103/2016 which is stated to be pending before this Court. 3. Since the retiral dues of the petitioner were not being settled, therefore, he filed W. P. No. 9943/2017 which was decided by this Court on 17-11-2017 giving directions to the respondents/authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner. The respondents considered the case of the petitioner and have rejected the same vide Annexure P/6 only on the ground that against the order of acquittal, the State has preferred Cr. R. No. 3103/2016 which is pending for final decision before this Court. 4. In the matter of M. P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. vs. Vinod Kumar Save, ILR (2008) M.P. 2213 this Court has held that when an employee is acquitted by the criminal Court, Pension Rules are absolutely silent whether he can be treated under cloud, therefore, the employee cannot be kept under suspension otherwise it may cause immense hardship to him. In another order dated 1-2-2013 W. P. No. 12152/2007, R. C. Dubey vs. M. P. State Electricity Board and others, passed by this Court, wherein it has been held that the preferment of a criminal revision or an appeal against the order of acquittal cannot be regarded as continuance of the trial and cannot be treated to be pendency of judicial proceedings as the initial presumption of innocence gets re-enforced by the orders of acquittal. While taking into consideration the aforesaid pronouncement this Court again vide order dated 5-7-2016 W. P. No. 10083/2015, C. L. Sharma vs. M. P. State Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Bank Ltd. and others, has held that pendency of the criminal appeal against acquittal is not an extension of a trial. 5. In the present case, notices were issued on 17-6-2019. While taking into consideration the aforesaid pronouncement this Court again vide order dated 5-7-2016 W. P. No. 10083/2015, C. L. Sharma vs. M. P. State Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Bank Ltd. and others, has held that pendency of the criminal appeal against acquittal is not an extension of a trial. 5. In the present case, notices were issued on 17-6-2019. The State was granted time to file the reply within four weeks vide order dated 25-2-2020. On 8-9-2021 taking into consideration the fact that the matter relates to grant of pensionary benefits and the petitioner stood retired w.e.f 31-5-1995, therefore, as a last indulgence four weeks’ time was further granted to file reply, failing which the right to file return was directed to be forfeited. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the State could not point out any satisfactory reason as to why reply has not been filed. There is no order of forfeiture of under M. P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. Neither any rules, circular or regulation etc. is pointed out so as to take a different view than the view which has been taken by this Court in the matters as referred above. Since, there are no other reasons given by the department either in the order impugned or in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the State except the fact that the criminal revision is pending against the order of acquittal therefore, this Court takes the same view as has been taken in the matters as referred above and accordingly the instant writ petition is allowed. Decision Annexure P/6 is set aside. The respondents are directed to release the retiral dues of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. Petition is allowed.