Shivram Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 13471 MP

                                    1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                             AT INDORE
                                BEFORE
          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR

                   ON THE 13th OF OCTOBER, 2022

                WRIT PETITION No. 20464 of 2022

  BETWEEN:-
  SHIVRAM SHARMA S/O BABULALJI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
  OCCUPATION: RETIRED SUB INSPECTOR 221/1, NAI COLONY,
  CHAWANI, NAVRAGABAD, ALIGARH DISTRICT ALIGARH
  (UTTAR PRADESH)
                                                       .....PETITIONER
  (BY SHRI ANAND AGRAWAL, ADVOCATE )

  AND
   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL
1. SECRETARY MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
  (BY SHRI ANENDRA SINGH PARIHAR, ADVOCATE )
      This petition coming on for hearing on this day, the court
passed the following:
                             ORDER

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus in the nature of direction/order or any other writ:-

a) Quashing the order dated 29.04.2022 (Annexure-P/1).

b) That the respondents may kindly be directed to make the payment of full pension, full gratuity and amount of leave encashment along with the arrears and interest and cost of this petition.

c) Any other writ, direction or order that the justice of this case may require.

In this matter, the petitioner is challenging the validity of impugned order dated 29.04.2022 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent No.2 by which the petitioner has been denied the benefits of full pension, full gratuity and leave encashment amount, on account of pending criminal case.

The facts of the case reveal that petitioner who was working as Sub-Inspector in Police-Station-Sonkutch, District-Dewas (MP) was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Crime No.23/2015. He was acquitted by judgment of acquittal dated 29.09.2018 by Special Judge, PC Act, Dewas. The petitioner superannuated on 30.09.2021 after completing 44 years of service.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no provision under pension rules or any other rules to withhold the pension and other pensionary benefits after the criminal case is over. He further submits that petitioner has completed 44 years of service successfully and he has been acquitted from the aforesaid charge by Special Judge, PC Act, Dewas vide order dated 29.09.2018. He submits that earlier petitioner has filed fresh representation before the respondents regarding the pensionary benefits and other benefits but the same has been turned down. Hence the petitioner before this Court.

Counsel for the respondent/State was also heard. In the present case, counsel for the State has not been able to demonstrate under which pension rule or other rules the petitioner's pensionary benefits

have been stopped. Even otherwise also if any criminal case is pending against an employee then also he cannot be denied full pension as well as gratuity. The Division Bench of this court in the case of Ram Ratan Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2002(5) MPHT 11 (DB) in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 has held as under :-

"5. Shri S.C. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that trial has ended in acquittal, therefore, respondents should permit the petitioner to join the service. Reference is made to Rule 9(1)(b) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. Besides, Division Bench decision of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Surinder Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. [1985 (3) SLR Page 254].

6. Shri P.D. Gupta, learned Deputy Advocate General, submits that the petitioner has been acquitted giving benefit of doubt and appeal is in continuation of the initial criminal proceedings against him.

7. The matter was adjourned to enable Counsel for parties to find out whether any other decision deals with the subject. No other decision except Surendra Kumar's case (supra) is brought to our notice. Therefore, we proceed to examine the matter on the available facts and status of legal position. Rule 9(1)(b) of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 provides that:-- "Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial." Therefore, a person can be placed under suspension. One of the circumstances for placing the Government servant under suspension is when a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. Part IV of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, deals with suspension. Rule 9(1) provides for circumstances when a person can be placed under suspension by the Government. Petitioner was placed under suspension under the above quoted Rules which means he remains under suspension when criminal offence against him is under investigation, enquiry or trial. Investigation, enquiry or trial is over after announcement of judgment dated April 30, 2001. Therefore, this provision stands exhausted and petitioner can

revert back to service. To hold otherwise would mean reading something in the provision which it does not provide. Further it may cause immense hardship to person to wait for the final adjudication of the matter by the Final Court. Therefore, submission of Shri P.D. Gupta, learned Dy. Advocate General cannot be appreciated to the extent that once a person is placed under suspension, he continues under suspension during the appeal as well. We find ourselves in agreement with the decision of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Surendra Kumar's case (supra) being nearest to the point involved in this case rather deciding the same question and also that preferment of appeal is not continuance of the trial.

8. Therefore, what emerges out of the aforesaid discussion is that the Tribunal has not considered the matter in right perspective, therefore, order dated 17-1-2002 is set aside. The petitioner shall be taken back into service and allowed benefits available to him in accordance with law.

In view of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this Court (supra) and considering other facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that petitioner has been acquitted from the aforesaid criminal case and has superannuated after completing 44 years of his service, hence I am of the considered opinion that petitioner is entitled for all pensionary benefits. Resultantly, the present petition stands allowed.

The impugned order dated 29.04.2022 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent No.2 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to pay full pensionary benefits to the petitioner including full gratuity, leave encashment as well as all other terminal dues to him, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. Certified copy as per rules.

                                                                      (SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
    Arun/-                                                                 JUDGE
Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR
Date: 2022.10.13 19:38:59
+05'30'