Hanuman Prasad Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 15420 of 2018
Hanuman Prasad Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bramh Narayan Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 34
(Sl. No.44)
A.F.R
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Heard Sri Bramh Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri Dilip Kesarwani, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the petitioner was working on
the post of Constable in U.P. Police department and has attained the age of
superannuation on 31.3.2016. After his retirement, he was granted only the
provisional pension but gratuity and leave encashment etc. was not granted
to the petitioner due to the pendency of the Criminal Case being Case
Crime No. 446 of 2008 under Sections 223/224 IPC, Police Station
Wazeerganj, District Lucknow. It is stated by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the proceedings pursuant to the said criminal case are still
pending before the criminal court for trial. The instant petition has been filed
by the petitioner challenging the order dated 8.6.2016 whereby the gratuity
and leave encashment has been denied to the petitioner due to pendency of
the aforesaid criminal case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon various judgments of
Coordinate Benches of this Court as well as of Division Bench of this
Court and has argued that unless there is a serious crime involved, the
regular pension, gratuity and other retiral dues cannot be withheld by the
respondents. In support of his case, petitioner has relied upon the following
judgments:-

WRIA No. 15420 of 2018
2
(i) Writ-A No. 15093 of 2020 ( Devendra Kumar Sharma Vs. State of
U.P. and others).
(ii) Writ-A No. 10536 of 2021 ( Arun Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P.
and others).
(iii) Writ-A No. 8039 of 2018 ( Udai Veer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
others).
(iv) Writ-A No. 17141 of 2012 ( Ap Deo Narain Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others).
(v) Writ-A No. 26972 of 2013 ( Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others).
(vi) Special Appeal Defective No. 440 of 2014 ( State of U.P. and
others Vs. Bal Kishan Tiwari).
(vii) Special Appeal Defective No. 687 of 2014 ( State of U.P. and
others Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh).
(viii) Writ-A No. 30100 of 2015 ( Sukh Sagar Shukla Vs. State of
U.P. and others).
4. Per contra, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State has relied
upon Regulations 351-AA and 919-A of the Civil Services Regulation as
applicable in the State of U.P. and has submitted that Regulation 919-A (3)
which categorically prohibits in categorical terms that no death-cum-
retirement gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the
conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings or the enquiry by
the Administrative Tribunal and issue of final orders thereon.
5. Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State has relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Writ-A No. 24624 of 2017 (Krishna Chandra
Pandey Vs. State of U.P.), 2018 Law Suit (All.) 3834 and submits that
relying upon the aforesaid regulation, this Court has held that the gratuity
and regular pension cannot be accorded to the government servant till the
pendency of the criminal proceedings. He has further relied upon the Full
Bench judgment of this Court in
Shivagopal and others Vs. State of U.P.
and others , reported in 2019 (5) ADJ 441 (FB) and submits that the Full
Bench of this Court has categorically gone through the provisions of the
aforesaid regulation and has concluded that the government servant/
pensioner would have to wait until final order is passed in judicial

WRIA No. 15420 of 2018
3
proceedings before claiming full pension and gratuity. In other words the
cause to the government servant of taking remedy would arise after order of
the competent authority is passed upon conclusion of the proceedings/
enquiry.
6. Having heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The relevant
issue involved in this case is whether the government servant can claim
release of gratuity and other retiral dues and the regular pension during the
pendency of the criminal proceedings against him.
7. In Writ-A No. 15093 of 2020 ( Devendra Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P.
and others), considering the Full Bench of this Court in
Shivagopal and
, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has relied upon the
others (supra)
observation made in para-39 of the Full Bench that only at the cost of
serious crime, Regulation 919-A would apply and issued the directions to
grant the gratuity etc. to the petitioner.
8. In Writ-A No. 10536 of 2021 (Arun Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
others), another Coordinate Bench of this Court has relied upon the
judgment in Writ-A No. 67791 of 2014 ( Shiv Sewak Prasad Vs. State of
U.P. and others) and has held that since no percuniary loss has been alleged
in the criminal case, in such circumstances, the directions were issued to
release the gratuity and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner, therein.
9. Writ-A No. 8039 of 2018 ( Udai Veer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others),
Coordinate Bench of this Court has taken a view that due to long pendency
of the criminal proceedings before the criminal court and since the
petitioner was suffering from cancer and it was concluded that due to non
conclusion of the criminal proceedings, petitioner cannot be made to suffer.
Thus, the directions were issued to extent all retiral dues to the petitioner
therein. However, it was further provided that in case of conviction in
criminal case, authorities may recover the amount so paid to the petitioner.
Against which Special Appeal Defective No. 859 of 2020 was filed which
was dismissed vide order dated 24.11.2020. Against which Special Leave
Petition was also filed which was dismissing inlimine.The judgment in
Udai Veer Singh (supra) was passed in peculiar facts of the case and do
not lay down any law.
10. Likewise, in Writ-A No. 17141 of 2012 ( Deo Narain Singh Vs. State of

WRIA No. 15420 of 2018
4
U.P. and others), Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that since the
petitioner was not an accused in the pending criminal proceedings, he was
allowed to grant him pensionary benefits. Against the aforesaid judgment in
Deo Narain Singh (supra), Special Appeal Defective No. 84 of 2013 was
filed which was also dismissed vide order dated 24.1.2013.
11. Likewise, in Special Appeal Defective No. 440 of 2014 ( State of U.P.
and others Vs. Bal Kishan Tiwari), the Division Bench of this Court, having
noted that since the criminal proceedings for the same allegations were also
pending and the departmental proceedings were concluded and minor
punishment was awarded to the petitioner and once for the same allegation,
two proceedings are pending and the department ought to have waited for
the final outcome of the proceedings, the decision thereafter to await the
judgment of the trial on the same allegations, which may at best result into
punishment to be awarded to the petitioner cannot be a ground on which
pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity may be withheld.
12. Likewise, in Writ-A No. 26972 of 2013 ( Santosh Kumar Singh Vs. State
of U.P. and others), Coordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the writ
petition despite the pendency of the criminal case and has directed that the
gratuity amount to be released in favour of the petitioner alongwith interest.
However, it is noteworthy that in the said judgment, the Coordinate Bench
has not dealt with the provisions of Regulation 919-A of the Civil Services
Regulation and the Special Appeal filed against the said judgment was also
dismissed vide order dated 24.5.2016, without noticing the provisions of
Regulation-919-A.
13. Likewise, in Writ-A No. 30100 of 2015 ( Sukh Sagar Shukla Vs. State
of U.P. and others), the Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that
mere pendency of the criminal case before the trial court, does not entitled
the authority to withhold the gratuity and leave encashment of the
employee. In this case also the Division Bench has not noticed the
provisions of Regulation 919-A.
14. In Shivagopal (supra), the Full Bench of this Court has observed as
under:-
"31. On plain reading, Article 351 confers power upon the State
Government of withholding or withdrawing pension or any part of it, if
the pensioner be convicted of 'serious crime' or be guilty of grave

WRIA No. 15420 of 2018
5
misconduct. In other words the State Government can withhold or
withdraw pension on two grounds: (i) convicted of serious crime; (ii)
guilty of grave misconduct; but not otherwise. In other words mere
pendency of criminal case or disciplinary proceedings is not sufficient to
withhold/or withdraw pension under Article 351.
36. Expression 'serious crime' would include offences having dangerous
possible consequences. Black Law Dictionary defines serious offence as
violation of law that is significant in effect and carries more than a six
months punishment.
37. Section 2 (54) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, defines 'serious offence':
"serious offences" includes the offences for which the punishment under
the India Penal Code or any other law for the time being in force, is
imprisonment between three to seven years."
38. The expression 'judicial proceedings' includes civil cases, plausible
civil cases where pension can be withheld/withdrawn would include
matrimonial disputes, succession cases, right and entitlement of spouses
and their children, domestic violence, civil death etc. involving the
government servant.
39. The expression 'serious crime' has to be understood in the context of
service jurisprudence involving the government servant. It may be any act
or omission which in the opinion of the competent authority is serious
enough and calls for punitive action in terms of Article 351 . It has no
bearing with the quantum of sentence but with the nature of the offence
and the degree of involvement of the government servant in the
commission/omission of the crime.
40. Article 351-A empowers the Governor to withhold or withdraw
pension or a part of it permanently or for specified period and order
recovery from pension for pecuniary loss caused to the Government if the
pensioner in departmental proceedings or in judicial proceedings, has
been found: (i) guilty of grave misconduct or (ii) to have caused
pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence during his
service. The proviso to the Article spells out the circumstances/ conditions
in which the departmental proceedings/judicial proceedings is required to
be instituted for the purpose of withholding/withdrawing pension. Article
351-A reads thus:-
"351-A [substituted vide notification dated 6 September 1961]. The
Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a
pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period

WRIA No. 15420 of 2018
6
and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part
of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if the pensioner is found in
departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave
misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by
misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered
on re-employment after retirement:
Provided that-
(a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was
on duty either before retirement or during reemployment-
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the
Governor.
(ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more
than four years before the institution of such proceeding; and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place
or places as the Governor may direct and in accordance with
the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order
of dismissal from service may be made.
(c) the Public Service Commission, U.P. shall be consulted before final
orders are passed.
[Provided further that of the order passed by the Governor relates to a
cash dealt with under the Uttar Pradesh Disciplinary
Proceedings,(Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1947, it shall not be
necessary to consult Public Service Commission].
Explanation-For the purposes of this article-
(a) Departmental proceeding shall be deemed to have been instituted
when the charges framed against the pensioner are issued to him or, if the
officer has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such
date ; and
(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted:
(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which
complaint is made, or a charge-sheet is submitted, to a
criminal Court ; and
(ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date on which the
plaint is presented or, as the case may be, an application is

WRIA No. 15420 of 2018
7
made to Civil Court.
Note- As soon as proceedings of the nature referred to in this article are
instituted the authority which institutes such proceedings shall without
delay intimate the fact to the Audit Officer concerned."
"66. The question that arises is whether the government
servant/pensioner can seek intervention at a stage before the competent
authority has had the occasion to pass appropriate order upon conclusion
of the disciplinary/ judicial proceedings/or enquiry by Administrative
Tribunal. We are of the opinion that such a course is not available to the
pensioner and if allowed would entail serious consequences, otherwise
not mandated by the Regulations. It is not open to the government
servant/pensioner, in view of the conjoint reading of the Articles to
preempt the pending proceedings/enquiry by walking away with
pension/gratuity without awaiting the outcome/conclusion of the
disciplinary/judicial proceedings/enquiry. The competent authority upon
conclusion of the proceedings would be in a position to apply its mind on
the outcome of the proceedings/enquiry and pass order thereon either
withholding/withdrawing/ reduction of pension or directing recovery of
pecuniary loss from pension under Articles 351/ 351-A of the Civil
Service Regulations.
67. Article 351-AA/919-A came to be incorporated later (1980), the rule
making authority was fully aware of the existing provisions, in particular,
Article 351/351-A, but the rule making authority, in view of the plain and
unambiguous language used therein (Article 351-A), while incorporating
Article 351-AA/919-A, did not consider it appropriate to mandate the
release of full pension/gratuity to the government servant until conclusion
of the proceedings. The entitlement to provisional pension and deferment
of gratuity during pendency of the proceedings was not made subject to
any further conditions at that stage. The stage was deferred until orders
thereon was required to be passed by the competent authority recording
satisfaction or otherwise upon conclusion of proceedings/enquiry.
69. It, therefore, follows that the stage of passing appropriate order under
Article 351/351-A by the competent authority is mandated at the
conclusion of the proceedings and certainly not at the stage during
pendency of the disciplinary/judicial proceedings.The cause to the
pensioner would arise after the order is passed by the competent
authority upon conclusion of the proceedings and findings returned
thereon. In the opinion of the competent authority if the pensioner is
guilty of grave misconduct, or convicted of serious crime, or caused
pecuniary loss, the consequence under Article 351/351-A would follow.

WRIA No. 15420 of 2018
8
The government servant/ pensioner would have to wait until such an
order is passed before claiming full pension and gratuity. In other words
the cause to the government servant of taking remedy would arise after
order of the competent authority is passed upon conclusion of the
proceedings/enquiry and not during pendency of the
proceedings/enquiry."
15. The Full Bench of this Court has categorically dealt with the
Regulations 351-A, 351-AA as well as Regulation -919 A and has finally
concluded that the cause of action for passing the appropriate orders under
Regulations-351 and would arise only after the conclusion of the
351-A
proceedings before the criminal court or the judicial proceedings or the
disciplinary proceedings and if the aforesaid proceedings are pending, the
Government Servant would have to wait unless such an order is passed
before claiming pension and gratuity in view of Regulations351-AA and
919-A .
16. In Krishna Chandra Pandey (supra) the Coordinate Bench of this Court
has also dealt with the provisions of Regulations 351-AA and 919-A and
has observed as under:-
[17] Firstly, the mere reference of a decision to a larger Bench for
considering a perceived conflict does not detract from the dictum laid
down therein. The principle, in law, as enunciated in the said decision
continues to operate and bind this Court so long as it is not overruled.
This was also the position propounded by the Supreme Court in Manager.
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Saju P. Paul 2013 2 SCC 41.
Secondly, this Court notes that Bangali Babu Misra, Bal Krishna Tewari
and Dr. Chandra Prakash perhaps, inadvertently, failed to notice the
provisions of Regulations 351AA and 919A, which existed on the statute
book at the time when these decisions were rendered. Thirdly and with
respect to the view expressed in Kalika Prasad Yadav, this Court finds no
conflict as such between Jai Prakash and Faini Singh. While Jai Prakash
noticed the existence of the power vesting in the State to detain the
release of gratuity and authorise payment of a provisional pension by
virtue of the Regulations, noted above, Faini Singh only expanded upon
the scope and the exercise of power thereunder. Faini Singh is not an
authority for the proposition that gratuity cannot be withheld. It only
elucidates the legal position that the power conferred by Regulations
351AA and 919A cannot be invoked mechanically or irrationally without
adverting to circumstances, such as, the seriousness of the crime or
charge levelled against the employee. It, principally, underlines the need

WRIA No. 15420 of 2018
9
for the power to be exercised bona fide, with due circumspection and
application of mind. This is evident when the Division Bench observes,
"The discretion given should not consume the power for which such
discretion is to be exercised."

[18] It would also be relevant to note that the decisions in Jai Prakash
and Faini Singh have also been followed by two learned Judges of the
Court in two separate decisions, namely, Narendra Pratap Singh Vs.
State of U.P. 2015 11 ADJ 237 and Surendra Pal Vs. State of U.P., 2016
1 ADJ 370 [LB].

[19] Having recognized the basic principles, which would govern the
invocation of Regulation 919-A, this Court reverts to the facts of the
present case. As noted above, the petitioner is charged of commission of
serious offenses under the IPC. The provisions of the Prevention of
Corruption Act have also been invoked against him. The petitioner has
failed to establish from the material on record that the commission of
these crimes is unrelated to the discharge of his duties as a government
servant. Tested of the anvil of the principles enunciated in Jai Prakash
and Faini Singh, this Court finds no ground to hold that the view taken by
the respondents, to deny disbursal of complete benefits, merits
interference. Bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations and the
nature of the criminal charges which the petitioner is facing, this Court
finds that the action of the respondents, duly authorized by Regulations
351AA and 919-A, is justified and valid.
17. From the cumulative reading of the aforesaid judgments, it is apparent
that the most of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner do not deal with Regulations 351-AA and 919-A of Civil
Services Regulation and those orders were passed on the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, though there is a reference of Regulation 919-A
in the judgment of Arun Kumar Singh but the impact thereof has not been
categorically dealt with in the said judgment. Thus, it is relevant to take
note of the Regulations-351, 351-A and 351-AA and Regulation -919,
which reads as under:-
"Regulation 351. Future good conduct is an implied condition of every
grant of a pension. The State Government reserve to themselves the right
of with holding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, if the
pensioner be convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave mis-conduct.
The decision of the State Government on any question of witholding or
withdrawing the whole or any part of pension under this regulation shall

WRIA No. 15420 of 2018
10
be final and conclusive.
NOTE—This rule is applicable to all the officers enumerated in Article
349 except Army Veterinary officers of the Civil Veterinary Department.

Regulation 351–A The Governor reserves to himself the right of
witholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether
permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the
recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused
to Government, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial
proceedings to have been guilty of grave mis-conduct, or to have caused.
Recuniary loss to government by misconduct or Negligence, during his
service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement;
Provided that—
(a) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was
on duty either before retirement or during re-employment-
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the
Governor,
(ii) shall be in respect of an event which took place not more
than four years before the institution of such proceedings,
and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place
or places as the Governor may direct and in accordance with
the procedure applicable to proceedings on which an order
of dismissal from service may be made.
(b) judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty
either before retirement or during re-employment, shall have been
instituted in accordance with sub-clause (ii) of clause (a), and
(c) the Public Service Commission, U.P., shall be consulted before final
orders are passed.
Explanation—For the purposes of this article—
(a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted
when the charges framed against the pensioner are issued to him, or, if
the officer has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on
such date; and
(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to have been instituted :
(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which
a complaint is made, or a charge-sheet is submitted, to a
criminal court; and
(ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date on which the
plaint is presented or, as the case may be, an application is

WRIA No. 15420 of 2018
11
made, to a civil court.
NOTE—As soon as proceedings of the nature referred to in this article
are instituted the authority which institutes such proceedings shall
without delay intimate the fact to the Audit Officer concerned.
Regulation 351-AA . In the case of a Government Servant who retires on
attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any
departmental or Judicial proceedings or any enquiry by Administrative
Tribunal is pending on the date of retirement or is to be instituted after
retirement a provisional pension as provided in Regulation 919-A may be
sanctioned.
Regulation 919-A. (1) In case referred to in Regulation 351-AA the Head
of Department may authorise the provisional pension equal to the
maximum pension which would have been admissible on the basis of
qualifying service upto the date of retirement of the Government servant
or if he was under suspension on the date of retirement upto the date
immediately preceding the date on which he was placed under
suspension.
(2) The provisional pension shall be authorised for the period
commencing from the date of retirement upto and including the date on
which after conclusion of departmental or judicial proceeding or the
enquiry by the administrative Tribunal; as the case may be, final orders
are passed by the competent authority.
(3) No death-cum-retirement gratuity shall be paid to the Government
servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings
or the enquiry by the Administrative Tribunal and issue of final orders
thereon.
(4) Payment of provisional pension made under clause (1) above shall be
adjusted against final retirement benefits sanctioned to such Government
servant upon conclusion of the proceedings or enquiry referred to in
clause (3) but no recovery shall be made where the pension finally
sanctioned is less than the provisional pension or withheld either
permanently or for special period."
18. On plain reading of Regulation 351, it appears that Regulation-351
confers power on State Government for withholding or withdrawing the
pension or any part of it, if the petitioner has committed serious crime or
guilty of grave misconduct but not otherwise. Regulation 351 deals with the
circumstances where the government servant has already been convicted

WRIA No. 15420 of 2018
12
or held guilty of grave misconduct.
19. Regulation 351-A empowers the Governor to withhold or withdraw
pension or a part of it permanently or for specified period and order recovery
from pension for pecuniary loss caused to the Government if the pensioner
in departmental proceedings or in judicial proceedings, has been found: (i)
guilty of grave misconduct or (ii) to have caused pecuniary loss to
Government by misconduct or negligence during his service. The proviso to
Regulation 351-A spells out the circumstances/ conditions in which the
departmental proceedings/judicial proceedings is required to be instituted for
the purpose of withholding/withdrawing pension.
20. Regulation 351-AA provides whether any departmental or Judicial
proceedings or any enquiry by Administrative Tribunal is pending on the
date of retirement or is to be instituted after retirement a provisional pension
as provided in Regulation 919-A may be sanctioned. Regulation 919-A sub
clause (1) enables the head of the department to provide the provisional
pension to be released. Sub clause (2) provides that the provisional pension
shall be authorised from the date of retirement till conclusion of the
departmental or judicial proceedings as the case may be. Clause (3) of the
Regulation 919-A provides that no Death-cum- retirement gratuity shall be
paid to the government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or
judicial proceedings or the inquiry by the administrative tribunal. Clause-(4)
provides that an amount of the provisional pension shall be adjusted
against the final retirement benefits on conclusion of the proceedings or
inquiry. Thus, from the aforesaid reading of the provisions of Regulations
919-A and 351-AA, it is apparent that the provision for grant of
provisional pension has already been made pending the judicial
proceedings, departmental proceedings or the proceedings before the
Tribunal, if any.
21. The facts of the instant case is that in the year 2008, petitioner was
assigned the duty to escort the accused of the Gangster Court at Lucknow
and the said accused had escaped from the custody of the petitioner and
for the said action of the petitioner, a first information report being Case
Crime No. 446 of 2008 under Sections 223/224 IPC, Police Station
Wazeerganj, District Lucknow was lodged against the petitioner.
Proceedings with regard to said criminal case is stated to be pending.
However, for the said act of the petitioner, departmental proceedings were

WRIA No. 15420 of 2018
13
also initiated against the petitioner under Rule 14 (i) of 1991 Rules and
finally the punishment order was passed on 5.10.2010, dismissing the
petitioner from service.
22. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner has approached the High
Court and the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed vide
judgment and order dated 10.4.2013 with liberty to the respondents to
pass a fresh order after giving show cause notice to the petitioner with
regard to the proposed punishment awarded to the petitioner. Pursuant to
the aforesaid order, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and
thereafter punishment order was passed on 26.9.2013 against the petitioner
reverting him on minimum pay scale for a period of one year and
thereafter vide Government Order dated 25.11.2013, petitioner was
communicated that he is not entitled for the salary for the period between
5.10.2010 till 14.7.2013, during which period he has not performed any
duty. Regulation 351-AA of the Civil Services Regulation provides that
if any departmental or judicial proceedings are pending after the retirement
of a government servant, only provisional pension as provided in
Regulation 919-A may be sanctioned to such a government servant.
Regulation 919-A categorically provides that no death-cum-retirement
gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of
the departmental or judicial proceedings or the enquiry by the
Administrative Tribunal and issue of final orders thereon.
23. In the instant case, though for the same allegations, the disciplinary
proceedings as well as the criminal proceedings both were initiated against
the petitioner and since the criminal proceedings could not be concluded
for a long period, the disciplinary proceedings were concluded by the
department and punishment order was passed which was initially set aside
by the learned Single Judge on the ground that no show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner after completion of inquiry and before passing the
punishment order and the learned Single Judge has already given the
liberty to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and pass a fresh order
of punishment consequently, after giving show cause notice to the
petitioner, therefore, the order of punishment has been passed whereby the
punishment of reversion of minimum pay scale for a period of one year was
awarded to the petitioner. However, undisputedly and admittedly the
criminal proceedings are still pending against the petitioner with regard to
the act of the petitioner i.e. due to negligence on the part of the petitioner,

WRIA No. 15420 of 2018
14
an accused of Gangster Act has absconded from the custody of the
petitioner. The said offence may be of deliberate in nature on the part of
the petitioner or an act of negligence on the part of the petitioner but the
same is a very as it impacts the efficient administration of justice as a
whole and such negligence may paralise the entire judicial as well as
police administration. Thus the allegation against the petitioner is of very
serious in nature and cannot be curtailed only to the negligence on the part
of the petitioner and with regard to which criminal proceedings are still
pending against the petitioner.
24. In the instant case, therefore, Regulations-351 and 351-A would not
apply. Regulation 351-AA and Regulation 919-A would apply in the
instant case which categorically provide that once criminal proceedings or
judicial proceedings are pending against a government servant, during the
pendency of such proceedings, only provisional pension shall be accorded
to such government servant and gratuity and death-cum-retirement
benefits cannot be released to such government servant against whom
judicial proceedings are pending.
25. In the instant case, petitioner has already been released provisional
pension and other benefits, however, the final retirement dues and
gratuity etc. has not been paid to the petitioner for which the instant petition
has been filed. In view of the categorical prohibition made in Clause-(3)
of the Regulation 919-A, the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this
Court, is not entitled for the release of the gratuity and final retirement dues
and seriousness of the offence is an irrelevant fact with regard to the
applicability of Regulation 919-A as well as Regulation 351-AA. Hence,
the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, at this stage, till the conclusion
of the proceedings in the pending criminal case against hence.
26. Accordingly, the instant writ petition fails and is hereby
dismissed.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the respondents for
release of the gratuity, subject to his acquittal in the said criminal case. In
case of his acquittal, petitioner would be entitled for all retiral dues
including gratuity etc.
July 21, 2026
n.u.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
NASEEM UDDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad