ORDER : 1. Since the issue raised in both these writ petitions is connected with each other and the petitioner in both the writ petitions is one and the same, these two writ petitions are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. 2. W.P.No.38800 of 2012 is filed to declare the action of respondent No.1 in rejecting the petitioner’s request for regularization of suspension period as ‘on duty’ vide Order in Roc No.1105/2011, C.4(Con), dated 25.10.2012 as being arbitrary, irregular discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension from 01.11.2006 to 01.11.2011 as ‘on duty’ for all purposes including increments, pay fixation etc., on the analogy of the orders passed in respect of similarly placed employees vide order Dis.No.7233/PR No.71/06/ADM/DCK, dated 07.09.2011, by respondent No.2. 3. W.P.No.15640 of 2024 is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the retirement Gratuity and full pension to the petitioner on the ground of pendency of C.C.No.53 of 2007 on the file of learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases at Karimnagar, even though disciplinary proceedings were dropped for the same set of charges, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for release of Gratuity in terms of G.O.Rt No.1097, Finance and Planning Department, dated 22.06.2000 and to release full pension, without reference to ACB case in C.C.No.53 of 2007 on the file of learned Special Judge for SPE. AND ACB cases at Karimnagar by following Rule 9 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980, with all consequential benefits. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Reader in the year 1984 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of Junior Assistant in the year 1990. While he was working as Junior Assistant at Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Karimnagar, respondent No.2 placed him under suspension, vide order Dis. No.6917/PR.71/ADM/DCK/2006, dated 13.11.2006 on the ground of alleged involvement in a criminal case registered under Sections 466 , 468, 471 and 420 read withSection120 of I.P.C. 5. While he was working as Junior Assistant at Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Karimnagar, respondent No.2 placed him under suspension, vide order Dis. No.6917/PR.71/ADM/DCK/2006, dated 13.11.2006 on the ground of alleged involvement in a criminal case registered under Sections 466 , 468, 471 and 420 read withSection120 of I.P.C. 5. Sri Nayakawadi Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.1 after conducting detailed enquiry levelled against the petitioner and eight others, has dropped the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner herein vide Roc No.1908/2005-Vigilance Cell, dated 25.04.2011. He further submitted that pursuant to the said order, petitioner made a representation to respondent No.1 to revoke the order of suspension. Respondent No.1 after considering the representation of the petitioner, came to conclusion that there is no justificationt o continue the suspension order passed against the petitioner, as such the suspension order was revoked and he was reinstated into service subject to result of criminal case, beside observing that his claim for sanction of benefits and the suspension period can be regulated subject to the final orders to be passed in the criminal case, vide ROC No.1105/2011.C.4 (Con), dated 27.09.2011 and he was posted as Junior Assistant in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Vemulawada. Consequent upon his reinstatement, petitioner made a representation to treat the period of suspension as spent ‘on duty’. Respondent No.1 after considering the same, rejected the said representation vide Roc No.1105/2011.C.4(Con.), dated 25.10.2012, stating that “Though the appellant was exonerated from the charges, he was reinstated into service only after the orders of the High Court on his representation duly observing the regularization of suspension period shall be subject to outcome of the criminal case. Hence it is premature to consider the request of the appellant. Accordingly, the representation of the individual is rejected.” Which is subject matter before this Court. 6. It is further contended that the petitioner was shown as Accused No.4 and one Sri D.Rangaswamy and Sri T.Prabhakar Reddy were shown as Accused Nos.7 & 8 in the Charge sheet filed by the police before the trial Court. Respondent No.1, vide order Dis.No.7233/PR.No.71/06/ADM/DCK, dated 07.09.2011, revoked the suspension of Sri D.Rangaswamy and Sri T.Prabhakar Reddy and treatedthe period of suspension as ‘on duty’ by imposing the punishment of deferment of two Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect. 7. Respondent No.1, vide order Dis.No.7233/PR.No.71/06/ADM/DCK, dated 07.09.2011, revoked the suspension of Sri D.Rangaswamy and Sri T.Prabhakar Reddy and treatedthe period of suspension as ‘on duty’ by imposing the punishment of deferment of two Annual Grade Increments with cumulative effect. 7. It is the case of the petitioner that he stands in an identical footing rather in a better position when compared with Sri D.Rangaswamyand Sri T.Prabhakar Reddy, wherein their suspension period was treated as ‘on duty’ and non-conferring of said benefit upon the petitioner is discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. Sri Bathula Raj Kiran, learned Standing Counsel for High Court appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter affidavit contendingthat petitioner was placed under suspension and the conditional revocation of suspension is distinct from other employees and the case of the petitioner cannot be treated on par with other employees i.e., Sri D.Rangaswamy and Sri T.Prabhakar and that non-extension of similar treatment to petitioner is neither discriminatory nor untenable. Learned Standing counsel further contended that there are no merits in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. It is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of W.P.No.38800 of 2012, the petitioner was retired from service on 29.02.2020 attaining the age of superannuation and thereafter, he filed W.P.No.15640 of 2024 to release the retirement benefits, gratuity and full pension on par with other employees. 10. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not paid full pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits due to pendency of Criminal Case against him and that till date, charges were not framed in the said criminal case. He further contended that the respondent authorities have no power to withhold petitioner’s pension, unless he found guilty/convicted in the said criminal case. Mere pendency of criminal case, the respondent authorities have no right to withhold petitioner’s pensionary benefits and the same is in violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. 11. Apart from above, the Government has issued G.O.Rt.No.1097, Finance & Planning Department, dated 22.06.2000, wherein certain guidelines are framed for payment of pension and pensionary benefits to the Government Servants, who retired from service pending disciplinary action/criminal cases. 11. Apart from above, the Government has issued G.O.Rt.No.1097, Finance & Planning Department, dated 22.06.2000, wherein certain guidelines are framed for payment of pension and pensionary benefits to the Government Servants, who retired from service pending disciplinary action/criminal cases. Learned counsel drew our attention to the ANDHRA PRADESH REVISED PENSION RULES , 1980, Rule 52(c)(1) of the said Rules states about retirement gratuity, which reads thus: “C. Retirement Gratuity : According to clause (C) of sub-rule (1) of rule 52 of the ANDHRA PRADESH REVISED PENSION RULES , 1980, on Gratuity shall be paid until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders. According to the proviso to the above said rule, where departmental proceedings have been instituted under rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal ) Rules, 1991, for imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of rule 9 of the said rules, except the cases falling under sub-rule (2) of rule 22 of the said rules, the Government Servant. It is also further provided in the said rule that where a conclusion has been reached that a portion of pension only should be withheld or withdrawn and the retirement gratuity remains unaffected in the contemplated final orders, the retirement gratuity can be released up to 80% of the eligible retirement gratuity.” 12 . Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in view of the above said Rule 52(c), petitioner is entitled to receive 80% of retirement Gratuity and further entitled to receive full pension. 13 . Learned counsel further contended that similar cases were fell for consideration before the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.13353 of 2018, 4149 of 2021, 33379 of 2023 and unreported judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP No.3421 of 2021, dated 19.03.2021 and W.P.No.2545 of 2020, dated 24.02.2020, wherein it was held that the petitioner therein is eligible for gratuity as per G.O.Rt.No.1097, dated 22.06.2000 and directed the respondent therein to release 80% gratuity to the petitioner therein. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays this Court to allow both the writ petitions and pass appropriate orders. 14. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner prays this Court to allow both the writ petitions and pass appropriate orders. 14. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents has filed counter-affidavit and submitted that as per G.O.Rt.No.1097, Finance & Planning Department, dated 22.06.2000, in case of Government Employee, against whom the departmental proceedings or criminal proceedings are pending at the time of retirement, all the terminal benefits need not be released. As the criminal case, vide C.C.No.53 of 2007 is admittedly pending against the petitioner on the file of Special Court of trial of SPE &ACB cases, Karimnagar, the terminal benefits cannot be released to the petitioner. 15. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents further submitted that the petitioner was sanctioned provisional pension, i.e., 75% of actual service pension, in accordance with Rule 9(4) r/w. Rule 52(b) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980. He further contended that since the criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner, the respondent authorities have rightly withheld the petitioner’s gratuity. That upon conclusion of the said criminal proceedings, the petitioner will become eligible to the gratuity withheld after adjustment of the Government due, if any. Hence, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents prayed this Court to dismiss both the writ petitions. 16. Heard both sides and perused the material on record. 17. Admittedly, a criminal case i.e., C.C.No.53 of 2007 was registered against the petitioner on the file of learned Special Court of SPE & ACB Cases, Karimnagar for the offences under Sections 466 , 468, 471, 420 read with Section 120 of I.P.C, and he was arrested by the Police and remanded to judicial custody for more than 48 hours and consequently he was placed under suspension by the respondent No.1, vide Dis.No.69174/ PR.71/ADM/DCK/2006.After conducting detailed enquiry, respondent No.1 dropped departmental proceedings, vide Roc No.1908/2005-Vigilance Cell, dated 25.04.2011 against the petitioner herein. 18. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 having considered the representation of similarly placed persons i.e., Sri D.Rangaswamy and Sri T.Prabhakar Reddy whose suspension period was treated as ‘on duty’, but the same benefit was not extended to the petitioner in spite of there being found guilty in departmental enquiry and were also punished whereas the petitioner stands totally exonerated. 19. 19. In the present case, the respondent No.1 has already dropped the departmental proceedings against the petitioner, as such the petitioner is in fact placed on a better footing/position comparing to the other employees referred above and the petitioner is no way in lesser position than the other similarly situated employees, where the said relief was extended. In view of the same, the respondent authorities ought to have granted the similar benefits to the petitioner on par with the similarly situated persons. The said action by which the benefits were not granted upon the petitioner is discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The respondent authorities could not place a strong case to support their actions. 20. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to treat the suspension period of the petitioner from 01.11.2006 to 01.11.2011 as ‘on duty.’ 21. In normal circumstances, when Disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings are pending against an employee, he will be subjected to suspension and he will not get any increments or other benefits till conclusion of the said proceedings. 22. It is pertinent to mention that the said crime was registered in the year 2006. In the present case, criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and though charge sheet was filed vide C.C.No.53 of 2015 and till date even charge itself has not been framed and there is no progress in the said calendar case since 2015. 23. Basing on the same allegations and set of facts made against the petitioner, Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated. Meanwhile, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him were dropped thereby the suspension order was revoked and he was reinstated into service. Thereafter, the petitioner was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and he is getting only provisional pension and no gratuity has been sanctioned till date due to pendency of criminal case against him. 24. As seen from the record, the respondents after conducting detailed enquiry where the standard of proof required is the preponderance of probability yet have dropped the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and reinstated him into service with a condition that suspension period will be regulated subject to final orders to be passed in the criminal case. 24. As seen from the record, the respondents after conducting detailed enquiry where the standard of proof required is the preponderance of probability yet have dropped the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and reinstated him into service with a condition that suspension period will be regulated subject to final orders to be passed in the criminal case. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondents by placing reliance on G.O.Rt.No.1097, Finance and Planning (FE.Pen.I) Department, dated 22.06.2000 that in case of Government employee against whom the departmental proceedings or criminal proceedings are pending at the time of retirement, all the terminal benefits need not be released. 25. It is pertinent to mention that in State Of West Bengal v. Haresh C. Banerjee and others , [2006 AIR SCW 5046] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the right to receive pension is held to be a right to property protected under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India even after repeal of Article 31 (1) of the Constitution of India (Forty- Fourth Amendment) Act 1978 w.e.f. 20 th June, 1979. In State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahma Datt Sharma and Another , [ 1987 (2) SCC 179 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that if the Government incurs pecuniary loss on account of misconduct or negligence of a Government servant and if he retires from service before any departmental proceedings are taken against him, it is open to the State Government to initiate departmental proceedings and if in those proceedings he is found guilty of misconduct, negligence or any other such act or commission as a result of which Government is put to pecuniary loss, the State Government is entitled to withhold, reduce or recover the loss suffered by it by forfeiture or reduction of pension. 26. No doubt, by the said judgments, the Government is having authority to withhold, reduce or recover the amount in the pension of a Government servant as it may think proper. 26. No doubt, by the said judgments, the Government is having authority to withhold, reduce or recover the amount in the pension of a Government servant as it may think proper. In the present case, basing on the news item published in ‘Eenadu’ Telugu Daily Newspaper, dated, 09.12.2005, to the effect that some persons with the connivance of the officials working in Judiciary, Lower Maneru Dam and Land Revenue Commissionarate, manipulated judgments as if the High Court has awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- per acre irrespective of the nature of land and by using those judgments they have drawn huge amount from the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Karimnagar. 27......... (a) Basing on the said allegation, a case in Crime No.03 of 2006 was registered against the petitioner and others on the file of CID, Hyderabad. (b) Petitioner along with others were arrested on 01.11.2006 and remanded to judicial custody. (c) Thereafter, respondents have placed the petitioner under suspension on 13.11.2006 and initiated departmental proceedings against him. Meanwhile, enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and others. (d) The Enquiry Officer has submitted a report on 28.09.2010. In the enquiry report it was observed that as charges framed against the petitioner were not proved, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him were dropped on 25.04.2011 and the suspension order was revoked and he was reinstated into service on 01.11.2011 subject to finalization of criminal proceedings, which were initiated against same set of allegations. (e) However, charge sheet i.e., C.C.No.53 of 2007 was filed on 24.09.2007 and though 18 years have been elapsed, till date even charge itself has not been framed. (f) During interregnum period, the petitioner got retired from service on 29.02.2020 on attaining the age of superannuation. 28. This Court having considered the submissions made by learned counsel on either side, we are of the considered opinion that the charges framed against the petitioner in the domestic enquiry were dropped by respondents vide proceedings ROC No.1908/2005-Vigilance Cell, dated 25.04.2011. This Bench is of the opinion that there is no justification left on the part of the respondents in not paying the full pension and Gratuity to the petitioner under the guise of the prolonged pendency of a criminal case more so, on the same set of allegations in the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner stood exonerated and the Departmental Enquiry itself was dropped. In such case, in view of dropping of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, pendency of criminal proceedings is only an empty formality. 29. The reasons to reach to such a conclusion is that the standard of proof as in departmental proceedings is being preponderance of probabilities, whereas, in criminal case, it is beyond reasonable doubt which is more stringent. 30. Considering the above exceptional and peculiar circumstances of the case, this Bench is of the opinion that under the guise of prolonged pendency of the criminal case and for the said reasons withholding of pension, pensionary benefits and gratuity would amount to breach of fundamental rights i.e., Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as pension is a right and it also amounts to depriving of right to life, which is impermissible under law. More particularly, the petitioner got retired from service on superannuation in the year 2020 i.e., about five years back. 31. In view of the above observations, these two Writ Petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to release full pension and gratuity to the petitioner. However, we made it clear that this an exceptional case and it is not binding precedent on other cases. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.