IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 6469 of 2010 Date of decision: 04.05.2011 Y.K. Singla ...Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. Kartikeya, Advocate for Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocte for the respondents. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner had joined the services of the respondent- Bank on 19.02.1958. During the course of his career, he was promoted to various posts and finally retired on 31.10.1996. His retiral benefits were not released on the ground that sanction for his prosecution for certain lapses on his part had been granted and, thus, his gratuity, commutation of pension, and leave encashment etc. were withheld. The petitioner faced criminal proceedings and was finally acquitted on 31.10.2009 by Special Judge, CBI Court, Chandigarh. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation on 26.11.2009 demanding release of his retiral benefits, which had been withheld. Petitioner claimed interest as well. The respondent/Bank has released the retiral benefits on 05.02.2010 but has not paid any interest on the amount which had been withheld. The petitioner, therefore, has approached this Court through this writ petition seeking direction for grant of interest on the amount, which was Civil Writ Petition No. 6469 of 2010 -2- withheld by the respondents for considerable period and which is now released. The bank has filed the written statement. The justification offered to withhold the amount is the pendency of criminal/judicial proceedings. It is stated that upon his acquittal the amount has been released. As per the Bank, the plea of the petitioner for grant of interest is not made out as he was facing criminal charge. The Bank would rely upon the circular dated 04.03.1997 to say that the interest in such circumstances would not be payable. Counsel for the respondents has relied on State of Orissa versus Kalicharan Mohapatra 1995 (5) SCT 782. In this judgment it is observed that if a person is found to have committed the grave misconduct or to have caused loss on account of misconduct or negligence for which departmental and judicial proceedings are pending then the Government is entitled to withhold or withdraw pension or any part of it. These observations have been made while considering the power to withhold or withdraw pension for which proof of misconduct has not been held to be prerequisite. The ratio as noted above would have no relevance to decide the issue raised in the present writ petition. Substantial amount of the petitioner was withheld during the pendency of criminal proceedings. Once the petitioner has earned acquittal, he can not be put to any prejudice for pendency of criminal proceedings. The amount due to the petitioner was certainly withheld by the Bank for a substantial period. It was put to use by the Bank. The Bank cannot escape liability to pay interest on the Civil Writ Petition No. 6469 of 2010 -3- amount so withheld. The action to withhold the amount after acquittal cannot be justified. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Direction is issued to pay the interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date, the amount was due till the date of payment. Let the necessary calculation be done and amount released to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. May 04, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE