1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6232/02 Shri Durvesh Kumar Singh vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 18/2/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Shobhit Tiwari for the petitioner. Shri Zakir Hussain, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the State. Shri J.K. Singhi ) Shri Amitabh Jatav ) for respondents. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondents be directed to pay all his retiral dues as also the pension including the arrears thereof with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Shri Shobhit Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that while the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Marketing Inspector with the respondents sometime in the year 1965. He remained posted at different places. A criminal case was lodged against him while he was working in the Seeds Corporation on the basis of Audit Report though for the same cause the petitioner was served with a 2 charge sheet. He filed reply to the charge sheet and after submission of the reply, the matter was closed by the respondents and no further action was taken. In the meantime, he retired. It was argued that the respondents not only did not pay him retiral benefits and complete pension but also did not grant him the benefit of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service in terms of Circular of the Government dated 25.1.1992 and benefit of revised pay scale of 1988. Even the amount of gratuity was not paid to him. All these benefits were withheld ostensibly for the reason of pendency of the criminal case against the petitioner. In that case also, he was acquitted by order of the Special Judge, Designated Court, Ajmer dated 20.2.2008 for all the charges under Section 409, 468, 477A, 120-B IPC read with Section 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, but till date the respondents have not paid the retiral benefits and other dues to the petitioner. The respondents have opposed the writ petition and submitted that the amount of 3 gratuity was paid to the petitioner but the other dues could not be paid because of the pendency of the departmental enquiry. It was argued that petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.74,707/- and Rs.5,622/- towards State Insurance and Rs.10,151/- was also outstanding which could not be paid due to absence of evidence. The petitioner has also been paid the amount of Rs.1,96,248/- for the GPF. Learned counsel submitted that even if the petitioner has been acquitted, the departmental enquiry would now be required to be taken to its logical conclusion and there is no impediment in doing so, despite acquittal of the petitioner on the same charges by the criminal court. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that petitioner categorically raised the plea that charge sheet was served upon him in the year 1988 and he filed reply thereof. The respondents closed the matter and did not deem it appropriate to proceed further. This plea he reiterated in rejoinder in response to reply submitted by the respondents. The respondents did not 4 proceed with the departmental enquiry even after reply of the petitioner in the year 1988 itself. On perusal of the judgment of the Special Judge by which the petitioner was acquitted of the above referred to charges, it appears that charge sheet against the petitioner in that case was filed on 12.1.1993. Nothing has been explained why the respondents did not pursue the enquiry against the petitioner and what prevented them in proceeding with disciplinary enquiry against him. The respondents in their reply to the writ petition though stated that the retiral dues and other benefits withheld on account of pendency of the criminal case and departmental enquiry but they have not explained why for such a long period, the departmental enquiry was kept pending. If at all they wanted to proceed against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry, they could do so. It appears that criminal case was registered against the petitioner on the basis of certain audit objections pertaining to the incident of the year 1986 to 1988 and 5 except the benefits which the respondents have admitted in the reply, no other benefits have been paid to him. Having regard to the facts of the case, specially considering the fact that the petitioner has already been acquitted of the charges by the criminal court, it is not considered proper to now permit to go with the disciplinary enquiry specifically in relation to a matter of 1988 as it has being now very difficult for the petitioner to arrange for his defence at the distance of time and this is also because the respondents themselves decided not to go ahead with the departmental enquiry despite serving the charge sheet on the petitioner way back in the year 1988. More than two decades have gone by since the charge sheet was served. The department enquiry against the petitioner should therefore be treated as closed and his pension case should be finalised. All his retiral dues aforesaid as also the benefit of selection scale and annual grade increments, revised pay scale as admissible from time to time with leave encashment and any due payable towards GPF 6 and State Insurance be paid to the petitioner. It is made clear that whatever amount has already been paid to the petitioner would be liable to be adjusted. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the aforesaid dues till the date of order of acquittal dated 20.2.2008. Compliance of the judgement be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/