ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & RAVINDRA v. GHUGE, J.DATE

Writ Petition No.9763/2016:: 1 ::IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.9763 OF 2016Gaurishankar Mahadev YewareAge 75 years, Occ. Pensioner,R/o Laxmi Road, Washi, Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad… PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough Secretary, RuralDevelopment Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai(Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad)2.The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad.… RESPONDENTS.......Mr. V.V. Bhavthankar, Advocate for PetitionerMrs. P.V. Diggikar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr. Ajinkya Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ....…CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.DATE: 19th MARCH, 2025.ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : CHIEF JUSTICE) :1.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Byconsent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the WritPetition is heard finally. Writ Petition No.9763/2016:: 2 ::2.In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has assailed thevalidity of the order dated 20/4/2016, by which the ChiefExecutive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad has treated theperiod of suspension of the Petitioner, as leave period. ThePetitioner also seeks a direction to the Respondents to makethe payment of pension to him.3.The facts giving rise to the filing of this Petition, briefly stated, are that, on 11/6/1965, the Petitioner wasappointed as a Gram Sevak. Some time in the year 1993,there was an allegation against the Petitioner that hemisappropriated the funds of Jawahar Yojana. The Petitioner, therefore, by an order dated 2/6/1994, was placed undersuspension. The Enquiry Officer, however, by acommunication dated 30/3/1996, informed the ChiefExecutive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad that no freshpunishment be imposed as punishment of stoppage of oneincrement has already been imposed upon the Petitioner on13/8/1993. A criminal case was instituted against thePetitioner on account of misappropriation of funds. In thesaid criminal case, the Petitioner was acquitted. Therefore, Writ Petition No.9763/2016:: 3 ::by an order dated 4/8/1997, the Petitioner was reinstated inservice.4.The Petitioner, on 31/3/2000, attained the age ofsuperannuation. The Petitioner submitted a representation, seeking service benefits such as leave encashment, medicalleave, annual increments and pension. However, the ChiefExecutive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad, by acommunication dated 20/4/2016, rejected the representationsubmitted by the Petitioner. Hence this Writ Petition.5.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submittedthat, the Petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal casewhich was instituted against him. It is further submittedthat, the Respondent did not initiate any disciplinary actionagainst the Petitioner and, therefore, the action of treatingthe period of suspension as on leave, is wholly arbitrary andillegal. It is further submitted that, the Petitioner is entitledto pension. However, only a provisional pension is paid tohim.6.On the other hand, learned Counsel for theRespondents submitted that, in case a public servant is Writ Petition No.9763/2016:: 4 ::suspended pending criminal trial, on subsequent acquittal heis not entitled to all the reliefs as a matter of course. Insupport of his submission, the learned Counsel relied on thedecision of the Supreme Court in case of KrishnakantRaghunath Bibhavnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.reported in AIR 1997 SC 1434.7.We have considered the rival submissions made byboth the sides and have perused the record. It is pertinent tonote that, a criminal case was instituted on the allegations ofmisappropriation of funds. Admittedly, the Petitioner hasbeen acquitted in the aforesaid criminal case. No disciplinaryproceeding has been initiated against the Petitioner. TheEducation Officer, by a communication dated 30/3/1996,informed the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad that the Petitioner has already been punished asstoppage of one annual increment was imposed upon him andno fresh punishment be imposed on him. Thus, in theabsence of any criminal case and only imposition of a minorpenalty on the Petitioner, the action of the Respondents intreating the period of suspension as ‘on leave’ is contrary towell settled norms of service jurisprudence. The Petitioner is Writ Petition No.9763/2016:: 5 ::also entitled to pension. It is trite law that the pension is nota bounty, but, a right which a Government servant owns onrendering his service.8.Insofar as the reliance placed by the Respondentson the decision of the Supreme Court in the case ofKrishnakant (supra), the same is of no assistance to them inthe fact situation of the case. It is an authority that despite acriminal case, the disciplinary authority may enquire into themisconduct alleged and take appropriate action and, therefore, the acquittal in a criminal case ipso facto does notresult in all consequential benefits to the delinquentemployee.9.For the aforementioned reasons, the impugnedorder dated 20/4/2016 cannot be sustained in law. It isaccordingly quashed and set aside. The Respondents aredirected to treat the period of suspension of the Petitioner as‘on duty’ and to grant the Petitioner all the consequentialbenefits for the period of suspension. Needless to state that, the Respondents shall follow the Rules while fixation ofpension of the Petitioner. Let the aforesaid exercise be Writ Petition No.9763/2016:: 6 ::carried out within a period of two months. Needless to statethat, the amount recovered from the Petitioner shall also berefunded to him. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)FMPathan/-