RAJENDRA KUMAR SAXENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 4.9.2000 whereby appeal filed by him was dismissed by Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. Petitioner in the aforesaid appeal challenged the action of the respondents in withholding the payment of his gratuity, commutation of pension and final pension on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner retired from service on 31.3.1999 and as on that date no criminal case was pending against him in much as sanction for filing challan in the criminal case against the petitioner, which was made basis, was itself issued on 21.6.1999 in relation to incident of year of 1991 -1992. It was argued that the petitioner had no information of the said criminal case when he retired and it has been mentioned even in the order passed by the Tribunal that even at that time matter was pending on the stage of preliminary investigation. Learned Counsel referred to no dues certificate issued by the Department on 6.2.1999 showing that no departmental proceeding was pending against him. Reference was made to Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 to argue that sub -rule 3 thereof provides that no judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re -employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose, or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution. It was argued that sub -rule 6(b) of Rule 7 (supra) provides that judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted in the case of criminal proceeding, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance. In the present case, challan against the petitioner was filed on 13.7.1999 which is 3 -1/2 months after the date of retirement and therefore, retiral dues of the petitioner could not be withheld. Learned Counsel lastly submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted by the' Special Judge, ACD Cases, Jaipur vide his judgment dated 7.6.2004, which fact she sought to substantiate by producing certified copy of the judgment. The wrong committed to the petitioner need to be remedied by awarding not only the withheld benefits but also the interest for the intervening period. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also cited judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. K.V. Janki Raman : 1991(4) SCC, 109.

(3.) I have given my anxious consideration to the rival arguments and perused the material on record. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present matter, it would be apposite to reproduce sub -rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996: (3) No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose, or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution. What would be the meaning of word 'instituted' has been clarified in the sub -rule (6)(b) of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996, which is reproduced as under: (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted - (i) in the case of criminal proceeding, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made, and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the Court.'