Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1005 (RAJ)

Chandra Shekhar Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-03-29

REKHA BORANA

body2022
JUDGMENT Rekha Borana, J. - The present petition has been filed with the prayer for grant of salary for the period from January 2013 to July 2014 and for grant of increments and all retiral dues to the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case are that an FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was arrested on 15.01.2013. Because of his arrest and remaining in custody, he was suspended vide order dated 14.02.2013 with effect from 23.01.2013. The petitioner stood retired on 31.07.2014 while he was in custody. The learned trial Court vide order 05.10.2017 acquitted the petitioner giving him the benefit of doubt. After the said order of acquittal being passed, the petitioner applied for release of all his retirement benefits. But the said papers of pension etc. were returned by the Department in view of the fact that the directions had already been issued by the State authorities to file an appeal against the order of acquittal of the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no appeal has been filed by the State till date and therefore, withholding of the retiral benefits of the petitioner is highly illegal. Counsel further submitted that as the petitioner has now been acquitted there can be no valid ground in terms of Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1996") to withhold the same. 4. On being questioned, counsel for the respondents submitted that he is also not aware of the fact whether an appeal has been filed in the matter or not. So far as the pendency of any departmental inquiry against the petitioner is concerned, counsel for the respondents has placed on record the communication dated 10.03.2022 whereby, it has been informed that no departmental inquiry as contemplated under Rules 16 and 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1958") is pending against the petitioner as of date. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed in S.B.C.W.P. No. 2153/2012 (Tarachand Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 12.03.2014) wherein, relying upon the earlier judgments in case of Habans Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed in S.B.C.W.P. No. 2153/2012 (Tarachand Agarwal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 12.03.2014) wherein, relying upon the earlier judgments in case of Habans Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No. 2460/2007, decided on 28.10.2009) the Court held as under: "After acquittal no reason survives to detain benefits of the petitioner including consideration for grant of salary beyond the subsistence allowance already paid. It is well settled that the order passed by the trial court is final one till its alteration by the appellant court. In the instant matter though an appeal has been filed by the respondents giving challenge to the judgment dated 14.9.2004 but merely on the basis of the pendency of the appeal it cannot be said that acquittal of the petitioner at this stage is not final. Thus, the legal position in this regard appears to be fairly settled and the only Rule 7 of the Pension Rules, 1996, which deals with the withholding of the full pension, or a part thereof, depends upon the findings against the Government servant in any Departmental Enquiry or the judicial proceedings and that too subject to the orders passed by the Governor of the State, under the said Rule. This is not the fact situation in the present case and it appears that the respondents have withheld the retiral dues of the petitioner without any valid rhyme or reason." 6. In view of the submissions made, it is clear on record that the petitioner has been acquitted and after the said order of acquittal by a competent Court having become final, the release of the retirement benefits is a necessary corollary. 7. The second relief prayed for by the petitioner is that he is also entitled to the increments and further benefits admissible to him in terms of the Rajasthan Service Rules. He relied upon the judgment passed in S.B.C.W.P. No. 4542/2009 (Ganpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 13.02.2015). In Ganpat Singh's case the Court held as under: "Withholding of these benefits can only be undertaken after following the due process of law as prescribed in the RSR or CCA Rules. Obviously and admittedly, withholding of the benefits under the order (Annex. 9) was not ordered under any of the aforesaid statutes." 8. decided on 13.02.2015). In Ganpat Singh's case the Court held as under: "Withholding of these benefits can only be undertaken after following the due process of law as prescribed in the RSR or CCA Rules. Obviously and admittedly, withholding of the benefits under the order (Annex. 9) was not ordered under any of the aforesaid statutes." 8. A perusal of the record shows that no specific order of withholding any benefits, whether retiral or other benefits has been passed by the Department at any point of time. It has also been admitted on record that no departmental inquiry is pending against the petitioner as of date. It is clear on record that the order of suspension was passed only on the basis of a criminal proceedings being registered against him and he being arrested qua the same. As the petitioner has now been acquitted, no ground whatsoever survives with the respondent Department to withhold the retiral dues of the petitioner. 9. The third prayer made by the petitioner is that he is entitled to the complete salary for the period from January 2013 to July 2014 as he has now been acquitted in the criminal proceedings. 10. This Court is of a specific opinion that the same cannot be granted to the petitioner as during this period, the petitioner was in custody. The said period cannot be termed to be a period wherein the petitioner had served with the department, even if the consequential order of acquittal has been passed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be paid for the period when he was in custody as no work can presumed to have been taken up by him during that period. But in terms of law, the said period would be eligible to be considered for the purpose of calculation of his other retiral benefits. 11. In view of the ratio as laid down in Tarachand Agarwal's case and in view of the observations as made above, the present petition is partly allowed. 12. The respondents are directed to grant all retiral benefits to the petitioner he is legally entitled to. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to any monetary benefits for the period of January 2013 to July 2014 but would only be entitled to notional benefits including increments for the said period.