STATE OF U P Vs. JAI PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The special appeal arises from a judgement of the learned Single Judge by which an order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Etah on 22 July 2010 withholding the payment of gratuity to the respondent has been set aside and a direction has been issued to the appellants herein to release the gratuity together with statutory interest.

(2.) The respondent was appointed on 5 February 1969 as a fireman in the fire services of the State and was regularised in service. He attained the age of superannuation on 30 June 2010. On 22 July 2010, an order was passed by the Superintendent of Police, Etah allowing to the respondent a provisional pension of Rs.9025/- per month. The payment of gratuity was however withdrawn on the ground of the pendency of a criminal case which has been registered under Section 498-A of the Penal Code read with Section 304-B and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. There is no dispute about the factual position that an FIR was registered on 3 May 2009 against the respondent and a charge sheet had been filed before the competent court on 11 December 2009.

(3.) The learned Single Judge held that the proceedings which are pending before the competent criminal court are in reference to the Dowry Prohibition Act and not in regard to any loss having been caused to the Government and even a final judgement in the criminal trial would not result in any quantification of an alleged loss sustained by the Government. In the view of the learned Single Judge, the power under regulation 351 of the Civil Service Regulations could be exercised by the State Government for withholding or withdrawing a pension or a part thereof, if a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or is guilty of grave misconduct whereas in regulation 351-A, the State Government is empowered to recover from the pension the amount of loss found in judicial or departmental proceedings to have been sustained by the Government by the negligence or fraud during his service. In the present case, it was held that mere pendency of a criminal case could not justify the withholding of gratuity.