Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghuveer Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 March, 2021
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
1 WP-195-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-195-2020
(RAGHUVEER PANDEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 03-03-2021
Shri Prakash Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Dilip Parihar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
Heard.
By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated
15.11.2019 whereby the petitioner's request for release of the retiral dues has
been rejected on the ground that the appeal against the order of acquittal in
the criminal case is pending.
The case of the petitioner is that he was working as Head Constable
and was prosecuted for the offence under Sections 7, 13 (1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, which resulted into the acquittal by the Trial
Court, against which the appeal has been filed by the Special Police
Establishment (Lokayukta), which is pending. Further case of the petitioner is
that for the same issue the departmental enquiry was initiated in which the
petitioner has been exonerated.
The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner
is acquitted in the criminal case, the pendency of the appeal against the order
of acquittal will not come in the way of the petitioner in getting the retiral
dues. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the order of
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 23.01.2014 in W.P.
No.7592/2013(s) in the case of Balak Singh Thakur Vs. State of M.P. as
also the judgment in the matter of Gayaram Singh Rathore Vs. State of
M.P. and others, reported in 2018(3) MPLJ 130.
Learned counsel for the respondents/State does not dispute that the
case of the petitioner is covered by the said order.
The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Gayaram Singh Rathore
(supra) considering the earlier judgment in the case of Balak Singh Thakur
(supra) has held as under :
2 WP-195-2020
"6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and
perused the record.
7. The point involved in this case is no more res integra. In Balak
Singh Thakur (supra). This court has opined as under:
"The preferment of a criminal revision or an appeal against an
acquittal cannot be regarded as a continuance of the trial and
cannot be treated to be pendency of judicial proceeding as the
initial presumption of innocence gets re-enforced by the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh orders of acquittal. The contention,
therefore, putforth by the respondents that the filing of
revision against the judgment dated 12.12.2000 would
tantamount to the pendency of judicial proceeding does not
reason with the provisions as they stand under law. In the
considered opinion of this court, after acquittal, which lead to
an affirmation of the innocence of the accused, an appeal or
revision, as the case may be, being not a continuation of trial,
will not amount to a pendency of judicial proceedings."
8. The same view was taken by other High Courts in the case of
S.Rajagopal and Chula Ram Heerani (supra).
9. Considering the aforesaid, the action of respondents in not
releasing the retiral dues under the garb of pendency of criminal appeal
is disapproved. The respondents are directed to release and settled the
retiral dues of the petitioner within 90 days from the date of
production of copy of this order."
Since the case of the petitioner is undisputedly covered by the
aforesaid judgment, hence the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is
set aside and the respondents are directed to release and settle the retiral dues
of the petitioner within 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order.
C.c. as per rules.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE
DV
Digitally signed by
DINESH VERMA
Date: 2021.03.03
17:55:07 +05'30'
