Mere Pendency of Long-Term Criminal Proceedings Cannot Bar Service Confirmation and Accrued Service Benefits

The petitioner was appointed as a Homoeopathic Medical Officer on 23.06.1980

During his 33-year tenure, he received 1st and 2nd Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits in 2004 and 2005

He was granted exemption from passing the mandatory departmental examination for service confirmation via Memo No. 246 dated 30.12.2008

Although a departmental proceeding was initiated in 2009, he was ultimately exonerated, and the department recommended the release of his pensionary benefits following his retirement on 31.12.2013

Despite these factors and a 2013 departmental decision stating that officers granted ACP should be treated as confirmed, the respondents withheld formal confirmation of his service and related Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) benefits, citing the pendency of a 2009 Vigilance criminal case

1. Whether the pendency of a long-standing criminal case can be the sole ground for withholding confirmation of service and consequential benefits after an employee's retirement

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to service confirmation and DACP benefits given his prior exemption from departmental exams and the grant of ACP benefits

The Court primarily relied on the principle that an employee cannot be treated as guilty or denied service benefits merely due to the pendency of an investigation, as established by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109

The court also applied the departmental notification dated 27.02.2013, which stipulates that the grant of ACP/MACP benefits implies that the service of such Medical Officers should be treated as confirmed

Furthermore, the court adhered to Government Letter No. 7225 of 1981, which mandates the consideration of confirmation upon completion of two years of temporary service

The Court reasoned that the petitioner had rendered over three decades of service and had already been granted substantial benefits like ACPs and pension, which logically presuppose confirmed service status

It noted that the Vigilance Case No. 15 of 2009 had remained pending for over 10 years at the prosecution evidence stage, and the delay was not attributable to the petitioner

Applying the Jankiraman precedent, the Court held that the mere existence of a charge-sheet in a criminal case at the "fag end" of a career should not result in the indefinite withholding of service confirmation, especially since the petitioner had already been exonerated in the parallel departmental proceedings

The Court found the respondent’s 2024 demand for exam documents arbitrary, as the petitioner had been formally exempted from such exams in 2008

The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to treat the petitioner’s services as confirmed and issue all consequential benefits, including DACP and revised pensionary benefits, within 16 weeks

The Court clarified that if the criminal proceeding eventually results in an adverse finding, the respondents may take permissible legal action