IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 7319 of 2011 Date of Decision: 26.08.2011 Nand Nandan Sarup Saxena ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. S.K.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Kavita Arora, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. **** SURYA KANT .J.(Oral) Not one rather there were four criminal cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered against the petitioner. Out of them, last case FIR No. 66 dated 11.04.1996 under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code regarding embezzlement of ` 5,55,444/- came to an end with the petitioner's acquittal vide judgment dated 29.01.2009 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala (Annexure P-6). The withheld amount of gratuity was released immediately thereafter and thus, it cannot be said that there is an inordinate delay on the part of the authorities in releasing the said monetary benefit. No interest can be awarded to the petitioner on the misplaced assumption of delay. The petitioner's contention that once he was acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, he is entitled to be paid interest from the due date is untenable for the reason that the petitioner was CWP No. 7319 of 2011 [2] facing trials in the cases imputing serious allegations of corruption, embezzlement and misappropriation of the state exchequer. In such like cases, the formation of bonafide opinion by the competent authority that the release of the service benefits including gratuity to such like delinquent employee will amount to plundering the public funds, per-se, cannot be faulted. The claim of the petitioner for the award of interest hence rejected. Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) 26.08.2011 JUDGE 'ravinder'