Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chandra Shekhar Sharma vs The State Of Rajasthan on 29 March, 2022
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13716/2018
Chandra Shekhar Sharma S/o Shri Rameshwar Dutt Gaur, aged
about 65 Years, resident of Jaswantgarh, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary,
Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. The District Education Officer, Secondary-II, Nagaur.
4. The Pension and Pensioners Welfare Department,
Regional Office, Ajmer.
5. The Collector, Nagaur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Solanki
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Choudhary, Govt. Counsel
Mr. Ravi Panwar, Addl. Govt. Counsel
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
29/03/2022
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.
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
(2 of 5) [CW-13716/2018]
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.
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.
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.
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment
passed in S.B.C.W.P. No.2153/2012 (Tarachand Agarwal Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 12.03.2014) wherein,
relying upon the earlier judgments in case of Habans Lal Vs.
(3 of 5) [CW-13716/2018]
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."
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.
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
Vs. 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
(4 of 5) [CW-13716/2018]
the order (Annex.9) was not ordered under any of
the aforesaid statutes."
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.
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.
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.
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.
(5 of 5) [CW-13716/2018]
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.
(REKHA BORANA),J
26-AnilKC/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
