APHC010412932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 21356/2025 Between: 1. J VENKANNA, S/O BHIMAYYA, RETIRED DY.EE (R AND B), AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 40-6/4-8, REVENUE COLONY, MOGHALRAJAPURAM, VIJAYAWAD ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, R AND B DEPARTMENT, A.P.SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, (ADMINISTRATION), ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, NEAR RTO OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA-520010, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL AUDIT, STALIN CENTRAL, 8TH FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, GOVERNERPETA, VIJAYAWADA-520002 ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S MURALI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.21356 of 2025 O R DE R: The present writ petition is filed declaring the inaction of the 2nd Respondent in disposing of the Petitioner’s representations dated 23.04.2025 and 23.05.2025 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows: The Petitioner on attaining the age of 58 years had retired from service on 30.06.2004. As there was a criminal case pending against the Petitioner under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at the time of retirement, the retirement benefits of the Petitioner were withheld in terms of Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980. Subsequent to the retirement, a charge sheet was filed on 20.09.2007 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.9 of 2008 before the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. After thorough trial, the learned Special Court vide judgment dated 30.12.2024 acquitted the Petitioner on merits after examining the evidence on record. 4 The Petitioner submits that the retirement benefits which were held up on account of criminal case were not released and therefore, a representation was given on 23.04.2025 and 23.05.2025 to the Respondents for release of the retirement benefits. As the same is not being considered, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Ms. C.Indrani, the learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the department was unaware of the acquittal of the criminal case and sought for a clarification from the ACB Authorities. 4. Having heard the respective counsel, as the Petitioner was acquitted from the criminal case, there is no reason for the respondents to withhold the retirement benefits any further. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Chief Commissioner of Land Administrative A.P., v. R.S.R. Rao1 held that even if an appeal is filed against an order of acquittal, the same should not come in the way of release of retirement benefits. The relevant portion of the Judgment is extracted below; “18. As per Rule 52(1)(c) of the Pension Rules, the Government is empowered to withhold gratuity till the final orders are passed 1 2010 (2) ALD 773 (DB) 5 either in the departmental or judicial proceedings. Once final orders are passed, there is no provision that empowers the Government to withhold retirement benefits. 19. The final orders, as indicated in sub-rules (b) and (c) of Rule 52(1) of the Pension Rules, are the orders to be passed by the department upon conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings. Once the departmental proceedings end in favour of delinquent employee, there is no question of agitating the orders of the disciplinary authority by the department itself. Therefore, the final orders are required to be passed for the purpose of payment of retirement benefits. 20. Insofar as the criminal cases are concerned, the department has got a right to file an appeal. But, it cannot be said that the judicial proceedings have not been concluded. Once the criminal Court acquits the accused, it must amount to be the conclusion of the judicial proceedings in the first instance, Therefore, the appeals filed against the acquittal orders cannot be treated as continuation of criminal proceedings. The same view was taken by a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in State of West Bengal's case (supra), referred, to above. Para 9 of the said judgment reads as follows: "The submission of Mr. Chakraborty to the effect that pendency of the appeal against acquittal will amount to continuation of the proceedings cannot be accepted. Continuation of the proceedings must relate to investigation, enquiry or trial, and such. investigation, enquiry or trial, if any, have come to an end with the judgment of acquittal. The same being continuing in the instant case, is misconceived, only on the ground that an appeal there against is pending. If the respondent No.1 is convicted by the Appeal Court for commission of a criminal offence, sub-rule (4) of 6 Rule 3 of the said Rules would be attracted. Keeping in view the fact that different sub-rules of Rules 3 operate in different fields, we are of the opinion that sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 be held to be operative only in the case namely, when an investigation enquiry or trial remains pending and not or when the employee person is acquitted. The situations obtaining under different sub-rule being absolutely different, in our opinion, sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 must be given a restrictive interpretation." 21. If the appeal is not in continuation | of original criminal proceedings, the order of acquittal is a final order within the ambit of Rule 52 of the Pension Rules, referred to above. After the orders of acquittal passed by the criminal Court, as already stated above, there is no power for the Government to withhold pension or retirement benefits. The said benefits, therefore, are liable to be paid immediately after acquittal order.” 22. If the appeal or revision proceedings are in continuation of the criminal proceedings, there will be no end for the litigation and the employees, who have been acquitted honourably, shall not get retirement benefits till conclusion of all appeals, revisions, special leave petitions etc. Appeal against acquittal, not being continuation of original criminal proceedings, Rule 52 as above, will not be available to Government for withholding retirement benefits. 23. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was correct in passing the impugned order and we do not see any error committed by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7 24. ................ 25. Insofar as awarding of interest in OA No.7027 of 2006, which is the subject-matter of WP No.22929 of 2009, is concerned, withholding of pension or gratuity during pendency of the criminal proceedings is justified in the light of Rule 52 of the Pension Rules, referred to above, and after the acquittal, the employee is entitled to all retirement benefits and consequently, if the said benefits are not paid on acquittal of the employee of the criminal charges, there is no reason why the Government should not be made liable for paying interest over retirement benefits from the date of acquittal. Therefore, we do not see any illegality in awarding interest @ 8% per annum on the retirement benefits from the date of acquittal.” 5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Respondents to release the retirement benefits of the Petitioner within a period of three (3) months from today. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 22.08.2025 Ivd 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.21356 of 2025 Date: 22.08.2025 Ivd