THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.24322 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was working as U.D.C. in the A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited, 2nd respondent herein. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and the punishment of reduction of pay to the minimum time scale for two years and postponement of two increments was imposed, through proceedings dated 19.01.2010 by the 4th respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Chairman and Managing Director, 2nd respondent herein. During the pendency of the proceedings of the appeal, the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2010. The 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on 12.10.2010. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the punishment imposed against him has become final, the respondents are not releasing the pension and other benefits in accordance with law. The respondents filed a counter affidavit placing reliance upon Rule 52 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules. They submit that since a criminal case is pending against the petitioner, they are entitled to withhold the other benefits, though provisional pension can be sanctioned to certain extent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. It is a matter of record that the punishment as mentioned above was imposed against the petitioner and the appellate authority has also approved it. For the present, the petitioner dose not canvass the correctness or otherwise of the punishment. His immediate grievance is about the non-sanction of pension and withdrawal of other benefits. It is no doubt true that Rule 52 of the Rules empowers the 2nd respondent to withdraw certain benefits, in case the departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings are pending. In the instant case, the departmental proceedings were concluded. The question as to whether the retirement benefits of an employee can be withheld, even after the departmental proceedings are concluded was dealt with by this Court in W.P.No.21934 of 2008. Through order, dated 21.10.2008, the learned Single Judge of this Court took the view that once the departmental proceedings initiated against an employee are concluded, there does not exist any basis to withhold the terminal benefits. It was also opined that pendency of a criminal case has nothing to do with the sanction of retirement benefits. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and respondents are directed to release the retirement benefits of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly giving effect to the order of punishment that was passed against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 19.09.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.24322 of 2011 Date: 19.09.2011 JSU