THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.P.No.23220 of 2010 ORDER(Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the order, dated 30.11.2009, passed in O.A.No.381 of 2009 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The brief facts are that the first respondent, while working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, was placed under suspension from 26.09.2001 to 22.07.2002 and also from 26.06.2003 to 26.07.2004 on the ground that he involved in the criminal cases filed by his wife alleging dowry harassment. By the date of his retirement, the cases were pending trial. The case of the first respondent is that though he was acquitted in the criminal cases, the petitioners neither regularize his suspension period as ‘on duty’ nor released his retiral benefits. Hence, he filed O.A.No.381 of 2009 before the Tribunal, which in turn, allowed the same directing the petitioners to treat the suspension period of the first respondent as ‘on duty’ and also to release his retiral benefits forthwith after adjusting the amounts already paid along with interest on the arrears, as per rules. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 4. Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the petitioners contended that the retiral benefits of the first respondent are withheld on the ground of pendency of appeals against his acquittal in the criminal cases. 5. From a perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the first respondent involved in the criminal cases relating to his personal affair between him and his wife and after trial, those cases were ended in acquittal. Admittedly, no departmental proceedings have been instituted against him. Further, there is no rule to withhold the retiral benefits on the ground of pendency of appeals against the first respondent, as rightly observed by the Tribunal. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _______________ K.G.SHANKAR, J Date:02.02.2011 sj