Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) WITH the amendments incorporated during the pendency of the writ application, surviving prayers on behalf of the petitioner are as follows: "(i) To direct the respondents to grant the benefit of ACP to the petitioner pursuant to the direction passed in WPS 6337/2005 dated 10.09.2009 (Annexure -3). (ii) To revise the pension of the petitioner on the basis of last pay drawn and compute and pay the entire retiral benefits consequent thereto. (iii) For payment of statutory interest on commutation of his pension. (iv) For quashing the recommendation of the Departmental Screening Committee dated 15.05.2014 whereunder, the claim of the petitioner for 1st ACP with effect from 09.08.1999 has been denied on the ground of pendency of a criminal case against him." The facts which are necessary to be noticed from the pleadings on record in order to determine the controversy, as aforesaid, are being narrated hereunder: "Petitioner was appointed as Animal Husbandry Officer in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Government of Bihar on 05.10.1983. Two criminal cases were lodged by the CBI on 16.04.1996 being R.C. 47(A)/96(Pat) and RC 48(A)/96(Pat), though petitioner was not implicated as an accused at the relevant point of time. However, charge sheet in two criminal cases were submitted on 08.08.2001 and 27.11.2001 implicating the petitioner as an accused and sanction for prosecution was also granted. Petitioner was placed under suspension on account of his implication in the criminal case on 30.01.2002. He retired on 30.04.2004 from the said post. Thereafter, Departmental Proceeding was initiated against him under Rule 43(b) of Pension Rules on 20.08.2004. However, the said proceedings are kept in abeyance by the respondents authorities on the ground of pendency of a criminal case which has not yet attained finality. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the direction passed by the Writ Court in WPS No. 6337/2005, petitioner has been paid full pension and gratuity and other post retiral dues on his retirement keeping into regard the ratio laid down in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in [ : 2007 (4) JCR 1]."
(3.) IN the background of the aforesaid factual details noticed, it is submitted that though, DPC did consider his case for 1st ACP with effect from 09.08.1999 in terms of the Finance Department Resolution dated 14.08.2002, but simply on the ground of pendency of a criminal case, it has not been recommended. It is submitted that on 09.08.1999, petitioner was neither named in the FIR, nor placed under suspension, nor there was charge sheet filed against him in the criminal case, nor any charge memo was issued in the Departmental Proceeding initiated against him. Therefore, the decision of the DPC is in teeth of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. K.V. Jankiraman reported in [ : (1991) 4 SCC 109]. Respondents should therefore be directed to grant the benefit of first ACP as there was no legal disability against the petitioner on the due date i.e. 09.08.1999. It is submitted that the respondents have only tried to defend their action on the basis of subsequent development of his suspension or implication in the charge sheet filed in 2001 which could not have been made a basis to deny the legitimate claim due from 09.08.1999.;