JUDGMENT : SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. 1. The writ application has been preferred praying for direction upon the respondents to release and pay the arrear of salary with consequential benefits in favaour of the petitioner for the period from 03.11.2011 to 30.06.2019 and for a further direction to release the provident fund dues, gratuity and pension in favour of the petitioner with interest as due. 2. The petitioner's case is that he was appointed to the post of Night Guard-cum-Peon (hereinafter referred to as the said post) under the West Bengal State Cooperative Marketing Federation (Benfed) (hereinafter referred to as "said Co-operative") with effect from 06.03.1998 in terms of appointment letter issued vide memo no. SCMF/MD/302/97-98 dated 06.03.1998 read with corrigendum vide memo no. SCMF/Pers/604 dated 02.11.2005 issued by the Managing Director. It is stated that the petitioner was posted at Memari Benfed Himghar, District-Burdwan. 3. While the petitioner was working in the "said post" at Hooghly Branch he was falsely implicated in a criminal case under Section 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code registered as Khandaghosh P.S. Case No. 122/2011 dated 03.11.2011 (G.R. Case No. 1719 of 2011). 4. As the petitioner was detained in custody for the said case, the Managing Director of the "said Co-operative" vide memo no. SCMF/Pers/903 dated 07.12.2011 had placed the petitioner under suspension with effect from 03.11.2011 until further orders. Though the petitioner was released on bail on 12.01.2012, the authorities did not allow the petitioner to resume his duties. 5. In terms of the judgment dated 21.06.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 6 th Court, Burdwan in G.R. Case No. 1719 of 2011 the petitioner was found not guilty of the offence punishable u/s 420/406 IPC and accordingly was acquitted from the said case. 6. The petitioner superannuated on 30.06.2019 and on being acquitted he made an application before the Managing Director of the Cooperative for his arrears of salary and all other dues on 26.06.2019, to the respondent authorities and also prayed for permission to join his duties which the respondent authorities did not permit. 7. The petitioner retired without his dues and he was only paid subsistence allowance. Though he is entitled to full salary from 03.11.2011 upto his retirement. 7. The petitioner retired without his dues and he was only paid subsistence allowance. Though he is entitled to full salary from 03.11.2011 upto his retirement. The petitioner then made a representation before the General Manager (Administration) of the said Cooperative for release of his dues but his dues were not released in his favour. 8. On hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that the petitioner was implicated in the criminal case by his nephew, who during trial did not support the prosecution case. 9. The allegation in the written complaint in the criminal case was as follows:- “…………On 08.03.2011 defacto complainant paid Rs.50,000/- to the accused person as per his proposal and plan for purchasing potato seeds. Accused persons promised that he will return back the said money to the defacto complainant along with profit within four months. One agreement was prepared on a stamp paper with signature. But the accused person did not return the said money to the complainant……” 10. It appears from the materials on record that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations in the written complaint made by the nephew of the petitioner who subsequently did not support the prosecution case. It is further noted that the complainant was the sole witness to the prosecution. The prosecution did not adduce any further evidence before the trial Court. The trial Court had no other option but to acquit the petitioner from the said charges. 11. Written notes have been filed by both the parties. 12. The petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:- (i) State of Jharkhand & Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. (2013) 12 SCC 210 (ii) Subhash Mahato vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 344 (iii) Sharda Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2009) 11 SCC 683 (iv) State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Heem Singh, (2021) 12 SCC 569 13. The petitioner has also relied upon Rule 16 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 2011 (hereinafter as the said Rules) deals with the provision of suspension. Rule 16(b) read as follows:- “An employee of a co-operative society may be placed under suspension where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation of trial.” 14. The petitioner has also relied upon Rule 16 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules, 2011 (hereinafter as the said Rules) deals with the provision of suspension. Rule 16(b) read as follows:- “An employee of a co-operative society may be placed under suspension where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation of trial.” 14. Rule 16(e) read as follows:- “When the charge against the suspende d employee is not established or is held to have been unjustifiable or not wholly justifiable and he is reinstated, he shall be entitled to the full pay and allowances to which he could have been entitled if he had not been suspended; and, the period of suspension shall be treated as on duty.” 15. He has further argued that Rule 19 of the "said Rules" deals with retirement and retirement benefits which is enumerated below:- “(1) Every employee of a co-operative society shall retire on superannuation attaining the age of 60 years. (2) Employees of a co-operative society shall be eligible to payment of gratuity as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972). (3) An employee of a co-operative society who retires on superannuation or otherwise shall be eligible to receive cash equivalent of pay in respect of earned leave standing to his credit provided that the quantum of leave encashable under the sub-section shall not exceed three hundred days. (4) If the employee dies before superannuation, the benefits under sub-section (2) and (3) and all other dues shall be payable to his heirs or nominees, as the case may be.” (5) With regard to provident fund, as per Rule 10(e) of the "said Rules" “All whole time employees of the societies shall be entitled to the benefits of employee's contributory provident fund in rule 122. (6) It is an admitted position that the criminal case against the petitioner had no relation with his employment and the employer suffered no loss for said case. No departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and under the "said Rules" there is no provision for withholding of terminal benefits of the petitioner. (7) It had been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that.….” 16. The fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognized as a right in “property.” 16. (7) It had been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that.….” 16. The fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognized as a right in “property.” 16. Article 300-A of the Constitution of India reads as under:- “300-A, Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.-No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.” 17. The petitioner has further relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in The State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Heem Singh (supra). It is stated that in the case of Heem Singh (supra) there was criminal case and departmental proceedings. Admittedly, no departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in the present case. 18. It is further stated that though the petitioner was never terminated from his service, he was not allowed to join his service and he then superannuated from his service. 19. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 have argued that the acquittal of the writ petitioner from criminal case is not an honourable acquittal and, as such, he is not entitled to the relief as prayed for. 20. It is further stated that the writ petitioner never approached the respondent no. 2 to join his duties. On the other hand, he applied for all his dues. It is admitted by the respondent no. 2 that on 26.06.2019 the petitioner came to the head office of his employer and submitted application for his joining, withdrawal of suspension and the payment of retirement benefits. 21. It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner did not go to his place of posting till the date of his superannuation, after making the application for joining. It is the further contention of the respondents that as the petitioner did not perform his duty from 03.11.2011 to 30.06.2019, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for. The respondent has also relied upon the judgment of Heem Singh (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines to be considered while considering a case of “honourable acquittal.” “34. In the present case, we have an acquittal in a criminal trial on a charge of murder. The judgment of the Sessions Court is a reflection of the vagaries of the administration of criminal justice. In the present case, we have an acquittal in a criminal trial on a charge of murder. The judgment of the Sessions Court is a reflection of the vagaries of the administration of criminal justice. The judgment contains a litany of hostile witnesses, and of the star witness resiling from his statements. Our precedents indicate that acquittal in a criminal trial in such circumstances does not conclude a disciplinary enquiry. In Southern Railway Officers Association v. Union of India, (2009) 9 SCC 24 , this Court held: “37. Acquittal in a criminal case by itself cannot be a ground for interfering with an order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. The High Court did not say that the said fact had not been taken into consideration. The revisional authority did so. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the order of dismissal can be passed even if the delinquent official had been acquitted of the criminal charge.” (Emphasis supplied) In Inspector General of Police v. S. Samuthiram, (2013) 1 SCC 598 , a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that unless the accused has an “honorable acquittal” in their criminal trial, as opposed to an acquittal due to witnesses turning hostile or for technical reasons, the acquittal shall not affect the decision in the disciplinary proceedings and lead to automatic reinstatement. But the penal statutes governing substance or procedure do not allude to an “honourable acquittal.” Noticing this, the Court observed: “Honourable acquittal 24. The meaning of the expression “honourable acquittal” came up for consideration before this Court in RBI v. Bhopal Singh Panchal, (1994) 1 SCC 541 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 594 : (1994) 26 ATC 619. In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions “honourable acquittal”, “acquitted of blame” or “fully exonerated” are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression “honourably acquitted”. The expressions “honourable acquittal”, “acquitted of blame” or “fully exonerated” are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression “honourably acquitted”. When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted. 25. In R.P. Kapur v. Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 787 it was held that even in the case of acquittal, departmental proceedings may follow where the acquittal is other than honourable. In State of Assam v. Raghava Rajgopalachari, 1972 SLR 44 (SC) this Court quoted with approval the views expressed by Lord Williams, J. in Robert Stuart Wauchope v. Emperor, ILR (1934) 61 Cal 168 which is as follows: [Raghava Case 1972 SLR 44 (SC), SLR p. 47, Para 8] “8. … “The expression “honourably acquitted” is one which is unknown to courts of justice. Apparently it is a form of order used in courts martial and other extrajudicial tribunals. We said in our judgment that we accepted the explanation given by the appellant, believed it to be true and considered that it ought to have been accepted by the government authorities and by the Magistrate. Further, we decided that the appellant had not misappropriated the monies referred to in the charge. It is thus clear that the effect of our judgment was that the appellant was acquitted as fully and completely as it was possible for him to be acquitted. Presumably, this is equivalent to what government authorities term “honourably acquitted.” [Robert Stuart Case ILR (1934) 61 Cal 168, ILR pp. 188-189] 26. As we have already indicated, in the absence of any provision in the service rules for reinstatement, if an employee is honourably acquitted by a criminal court, no right is conferred on the employee to claim any benefit including reinstatement. Reason is that the standard of proof required for holding a person guilty by a criminal court and the enquiry conducted by way of disciplinary proceeding is entirely different. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. In a criminal case, the onus of establishing the guilt of the accused is on the prosecution and if it fails to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is assumed to be innocent. It is settled law that the strict burden of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal court is not required in a disciplinary proceedings and preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. There may be cases where a person is acquitted for technical reasons or the prosecution giving up other witnesses since few of the other witnesses turned hostile, etc. In the case on hand the prosecution did not take steps to examine many of the crucial witnesses on the ground that the complainant and his wife turned hostile. The court, therefore, acquitted the accused giving the benefit of doubt. We are not prepared to say that in the instant case, the respondent was honourably acquitted by the criminal court and even if it is so, he is not entitled to claim reinstatement since the Tamil Nadu Service Rules do not provide so.” (Emphasis added) 22. Admittedly, there was no disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. In the present case the accused has been acquitted after full consideration of evidence of the prosecution witness and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused and, as such, the acquittal is an “honourable acquittal.” 23. From the records it appears that the petitioner was acquitted on 21.06.2019 and in spite of his application (admitted) on 26.06.2019, the petitioner is still pursuing his lawful dues. 24. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to release and pay the arrear of salary with consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner for the period from 03.11.2011 to 30.06.2019 and for a further direction to release provident fund dues, gratuity and pension in favour of the petitioner with interest as due. The dues of the writ petitioner be paid within 30 days from the date of this order considering that all the documents are already in possession of the petitioner. 25. The writ application is allowed and disposed of. 26. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 27. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 28. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously after due compliance.