IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.5 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.1.2010 State of Haryana & another. -----Appellants Vs. Banwari Lal. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl.A.G., Haryana for appellants. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, directing release of retiral benefits to the respondent. 2. The respondent was employed with the appellant State and retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2006. A case under the Corruption Act was registered against him on 21.10.2005. After trial, he was acquitted on 27.2.2007. Appeal against the order of acquittal was pending. Departmental proceedings were also initiated but have been held in abeyance to await the outcome of the appeal against acquittal. In view of pendency of departmental proceedings, terminal LPA No.5 of 2010 benefits to the respondent were withheld, against which he filed writ petition. 3. The writ petition was opposed on the ground that gratuity could not be paid till the departmental proceedings were pending. 4. Learned Single Judge upheld the claim of the respondent with the following observations:- “The finding of guilt is a sine-quo-non for invoking the provisions of the Rules to withhold or discontinue pension or pensionary benefits. Merely because the State has filed an appeal against the order of acquittal would not mean that this acquittal can be taken as a conviction to withhold or withdraw the pensionary benefits. Concededly, the departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioners have been held in abeyance to await the decision in the criminal case. That would also, therefore, not give any justification to the respondents not to release the pensionary benefits to the petitioners.” 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 6. Only contention which has been pressed by learned counsel for the appellants is that since proceedings are pending, there was justification for withholding gratuity and the State is now willing to conclude the proceedings within six months from today. 7. We are unable to accept the submission. The acquittal of the respondent was vide order dated 27.2.2007. The State had enough opportunity to conclude departmental 2 LPA No.5 of 2010 proceedings instead of keeping the same in abeyance. The provision to withhold gratuity during pendency of proceedings implies that the concerned authorities take steps expeditiously to finalise the same. If proceedings are kept pending for indefinite period, withholding of pensionary benefits cannot be justified. There is, thus, no ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 8. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 08, 2010 ( ALOK SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3