DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner joined the department of Industries, Punjab as a Clerk on 2.9.1965. After earning promotions to the post of Superintendent Grade-II he retired from service on 31.12.2003 on attaining the age of superannuation. In the year 2001 when the petitioner was still in service, an FIR No. 50 dated 3.10.2001 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 501/ 295-A, 153-A of I.P.C was registered against him at P.S. Nurpur Bedi and a challan is pending against him in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala. It seems that on registration of the case the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 9.10.2001, though, later reinstated vide order dated 17.4.2003 and during the period of suspension, he was initially paid 50% of the subsistence allowance which was later enhanced to 75%. After his retirement respondents withheld various retiral benefits of the petitioner. Even the admissible pension has not been paid. Respondents passed order dated 9.32004 for payment of only 75% provisional pension pending criminal proceedings against the petitioner. This petition has been filed challenging the aforementioned order with a further prayer for release of the retiral benefits. In Para 4 of the petition, following claims have been made on account of his retirement:

(2.) A detailed affidavit/reply has been filed. Respondents have justified non-payment of the full pension and withholding of the gratuity and other claims etc. invoking provisions of Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.11, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) in view of the pendency of criminal case against the petitioner, referred to above. However, it is stated that though, initially 75% pension was sanctioned as provisional pension, later, on re-consideration 100% provisional pension has been sanctioned and paid to the petitioner vide order dated 16.42007 (Annexure R-4). As regards payment of various other retiral claims are concerned, most of the claims like leave encashment, part of G.P.F and G.1.S already stand paid to the petitioner. Regarding non-payment of full G.P.F, it is stated that due to discrepancy in certain entries, there has been delay in making the payment. It is, however pleaded that the respondents are entitled to withhold the gratuity of the petitioner in view of the pendency of criminal proceedings in terms of Rule 2.2 (b) of the Rules.

(3.) It is common case of the parties that criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, while he was in service. From the nature of offences mentioned in FIR for which the petitioner has been charged, it is evident that the offences are unrelated to the service of the petitioner. Neither there is any claim of causing loss to the Governor there is any case for service misconduct against the petitioner. Even the suspension was on account of registration of the criminal base. The petitioner stands reinstated; There was no adverse order against the petitioner till the date of his retirement Rule 2.2 (b) reads as under: