HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12111/2017 Mukhtar Ahmed s/o Lt. Sh. Jumma Khan, R/o 1 Sa 27, Near Temple of Arya Samaj, Vigyan Nagar, Kota (Raj.) (Deceased) through Legal Representatives 1/1 Shahida W/o Lt. Sh. Mukhtar Ahmed, aged 64 yrs., 1/2 Shakeel Ahmed S/o Lt.Sh. Mukhtar Ahmed, age 42 yrs., 1/3 Wasim Firoz s/o Lt. Sh. Mukhtar Ahmed, age 34 yrs., 1/4 Sarfaraj Ahmed s/o Lt. Sh. Mukhtar Ahmed, age 31 yrs., 1/5 Sanjila Kosar d/o Lt. Sh. Mukhtar Ahmed, age 43 yrs., 1/6 Shabina Parveen s/o Lt. Sh. Mukhtar Ahmed, aged 36 yrs., All R/o 1 Sa-27, Near Arya Samaj Temple, Vigyan Nagar, Kota. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Kota City, Kota Raj. 3. Inspector General of Police, Kota Range, Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sajid Ali For Respondent(s) : Ms. Karishma Soni for Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/02/2025 1. By way of filing of this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 13.07.2016, by which the (2 of 4) [CW-12111/2017] respondents have withheld the service benefits of the deceased delinquent employee. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner faced trial for the offences under Section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') wherein, he was arrested and placed under suspension. Counsel submits that subsequently, the suspension order was revoked and finally the petitioner was acquitted from all the charges. Counsel submits that compulsory retirement was given to the petitioner vide order dated 16.07.2005, but while passing the order impugned i.e. order dated 13.07.2016, the respondents have granted suspension allowance to the deceased delinquent employee, but the other service benefits have been forfeited without any justified reasons. Counsel submits that under similar circumstances one Roop Narayan also faced trial for the same offence and he was also given compulsory retirement on the same day i.e. on 16.07.2005 and in his case, the other service benefits were not forfeited, hence, under these circumstances, the respondents have made discrimination between two equals. Counsel submits that when charges were same and identical and both were acquitted, then, both deserve same treatment, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that in the case of Roop Narayan, he was acquittal in the year 2009 and the petitioner was acquitted in the (3 of 4) [CW-12111/2017] year 2016 and the authorities who passed the orders were different and both authorities used their discretion. Counsel submits that in the case of the deceased petitioner, the grounds of acquittal were altogether different from the case of said Roop Narayan. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, there is difference between the case of the petitioner and the said Roop Narayan, hence, there is no illegality in the order impugned passed by the authorities. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of both the orders passed in the case of the petitioner as well as said Roop Narayan indicate that both faced trial under Section 7 and 13 of the Act of 1988 and both were arrested and they were placed under suspension. This fact is not in dispute that after trial both were acquitted on different dates and both given compulsory retirement on 16.07.2005, but while passing the order impugned, the respondents have forfeited the service benefits of the petitioner, but in the case of Roop Narayan, his service benefits were not withheld or forfeited. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the case of the deceased-petitioner is at par with the case of said Roop Narayan and the same was not distinguishable, hence, under these circumstances, the respondents were not justified in making discrimination between two equals. Such (4 of 4) [CW-12111/2017] act of the respondents is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 13.07.2016, so far as it pertains to forfeiture of service benefits of the petitioner, is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set aside. 8. In view of the above observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondents to treat the case of the petitioner at par with case of Roop Narayan and grant him all benefits which have been extended to Roop Narayan. 9. Needless to observe that the order passed by this Court would be complied by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/132