KULDIP SINGH, J. - (1.) Brief facts of this case are that Vinod Kumar-petitioner was working as Secretary, Market Committee, Dakala, Patiala and his retirement was due on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2012. During the service of the petitioner, an FIR No. 76 dated 28.10.2002 under Sections 7 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against him by the Vigilance Bureau of Punjab, Patiala. Consequently, the petitioner was arrested on 28.10.2002 and remained in custody till 06.04.2003. In the meantime, the petitioner was suspended from service. Vide judgement dated 07.12.2004 passed by the Special Judge, Patiala, the petitioner was convicted under Sections 7 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was accordingly sentenced. As a matter of consequence, vide office order No. 1339 dated 24.10.2005, the petitioner was dismissed from service on account of conviction in the criminal case, exercising the powers under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.
(2.) Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 2482-SB of 2004, before this Court and vide judgement dated 21.12.2012, the judgment passed by the Special Judge, Patiala was reversed and the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges. Thereafter, vide office order No. 474 (2013) dated 16.01.2014 in view of the order of this Court dated 21.12.2012 the petitioner retired from service w.e.f. 30.04.2012 on attaining the age of 58 years. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents for grant of salary and other pensionary benefits but the same was declined vide order dated 16.01.2004 (Annexure P-11). The concluding part of the same is reproduced as under:- "Keeping in view the above facts as well as the above decisions of the Hon'ble Courts, I am of the conclusion that the employee, who in connivance, is involved in any criminal case, which is not being initiated by the employer, and resultantly he is absent from duty, the employer is not legally bound to pay him the salary of that period. Thus it is clear that Sh. Vinod Kumar, who remained absent from duty, on account of a criminal case registered against him, which was not initiated by the Board and this office has nothing to do with that, in that case Punjab Mandi Board is not liable to pay the salary and other allowances of the period of his absence, because during that period, this officer did not do any official work of the Board. Thus, the period of suspension of Sh. Vinod Kumar, Secretary, Market Committee from 28.10.2002 to 06.04.2003 is being considered only to the extent of suspension allowance and for the period from 24.10.2005 to 30.04.2012, during which period, Sh. Vinod Kumar, Secretary, Market Committee remained out of service, it has been decided not to release any payment of any kind."
(3.) Consequently, the pension was released on the basis of last pay drawn by the petitioner as on 08.10.2005 when he was dismissed from service.;