Mere Registration of FIR Without Filing of Challan Cannot Justify Withholding of Retiral Benefits

The applicant, an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the J&K Armed Police with 37 years of service, retired upon superannuation on August 31, 2024

Shortly before his retirement, on August 7, 2024, he was placed under suspension following the registration of an FIR (No. 0090/2023) under Sections 420/120-B of the RPC by the Crime Branch, Jammu

Despite his retirement, the respondents withheld his superannuation pension, gratuity, and other retiral benefits, citing the pending criminal investigation and an inconclusive departmental inquiry

As of the date of the hearing, no challan (charge sheet) had been filed in a competent court, and no formal memorandum of charges had culminated in a concluded departmental proceeding

1. Whether the mere registration of an FIR and pendency of investigation, without the filing of a challan, constitutes "judicial proceedings" sufficient to withhold retiral benefits

2. Whether an inconclusive departmental inquiry initiated at the "fag end" of service can be used to indefinitely withhold pension and gratuity after superannuation

The Tribunal applied the principle that pension and gratuity are not bounties but valuable statutory and constitutional rights in the nature of "property" under Article 300A of the Constitution of India

It relied on the precedent Ghulam-Mohi-ud-Din Lone v. State of J&K (LPA No. 220 of 2019), which clarified that "judicial proceedings" are deemed to be instituted only upon the presentation of a charge sheet/challan in court, and not by mere registration of an FIR

Furthermore, per Article 168-A and 168-D of the J&K Civil Service Regulations (CSR), retiral benefits can only be withheld if departmental or judicial proceedings are pending at the time of retirement, and departmental proceedings cannot continue post-retirement for major/minor penalties unless specifically enabled by statute for the purpose of determining pecuniary loss

The Tribunal reasoned that for the purposes of withholding retiral dues, a legal distinction must be maintained between investigation and prosecution. Since no challan had been presented before the court, no judicial proceedings had "instituted" in the eyes of the law

Regarding the departmental inquiry, the Tribunal observed it was initiated just prior to retirement and remained inconclusive; without a specific statutory provision demonstrated by the respondents for its continuation, it could not serve as a valid ground to withhold dues

The Tribunal further noted the absence of any established finding of pecuniary loss to the Government, which is a prerequisite for invoking restrictive provisions like Rule 168-D of the J&K CSR

Consequently, withholding the applicant's livelihood based on a "state of uncertainty" was deemed arbitrary and legally unsustainable

The respondents were directed to release all retiral benefits, including pension and gratuity, within eight weeks; reserves freedom to respondents to take action if proceedings are subsequently instituted and concluded.