ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. N. Naha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. 2. By filing the present petition, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prays for issuance of an appropriate writ commanding the respondent authorities to release his retiral/service dues including gratuity, General Insurance Scheme, Leave Encashment and Provident Fund, as he has retired on 30.06.2021. The petitioner has claimed the following reliefs:– “10.1 Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to release the retiral dues including gratuity, GIS, leave encashment and provident fund deposits along with an interest to the tune of 9% per annum. 10.2 Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to calculate the retiral dues under all the relevant heads after applying the annual increments on due occasions in light of the order dated 04.02.2017 (Annexure P/3). 10.3 Grant any other relief, which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.” 3. Brief facts of the case, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Patwari and had been serving for the last 20 years with an unblemished service record. Subsequently, Criminal Case No.61/2015 came to be registered at Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari (C.G.) on 31.03.2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, the said case has no nexus with the service of the petitioner. Thereafter, by order dated 09.06.2021, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The said criminal case was registered against the petitioner along with one Lokesh Gupta and Smt. Sunita Gupta, who happens to be his sister-in-law and wife of his brother Ramesh Kumar Gupta. The case pertains to the business of a rice mill owned and operated by Smt. Sunita Gupta under the name and style of M/s Matritva Mini Rice Mill. The allegations relate to variation in depositing certain funds of the rice mill. The petitioner asserts that he has no concern whatsoever with the affairs of the said rice mill. The trial of the said case is still pending. The allegations relate to variation in depositing certain funds of the rice mill. The petitioner asserts that he has no concern whatsoever with the affairs of the said rice mill. The trial of the said case is still pending. Meanwhile, when the petitioner retired on 30.06.2021, his retiral benefits were withheld by the respondents solely on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him. Since the said case is not related to his service, the withholding of retiral benefits is contrary to law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR has no connection with his official duties as a Patwari and pertains entirely to the private business of his sister-in-law. Therefore, withholding of his retiral dues is unsustainable. Reliance has been placed upon judgments of the Rajasthan High Court and the Bombay High Court to contend that once an employee retires, retiral dues cannot be withheld merely because an FIR has been registered, if such FIR is unrelated to the discharge of his official duties. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the High Court of Rajasthan in the matter of Mahesh Chandra Soni v. State of Rajasthan , 2024 (3) LAWS (Raj) 2 as well as the judgment rendered by the High Court of Bombay in the matter of Sau Sheela Rameshchandra Bargaje v. The Administrative Officer and others passed in Writ Petition No. 12817/2017 decided on 29.10.2021 , to buttress his submissions. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that since the FIR has been registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 409, 420 and 34 IPC, and the criminal case is still pending, the petitioner is not entitled to retiral benefits until the conclusion of the proceedings. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. From the record, it is clear that the criminal case against the petitioner is not in connection with any service-related misconduct or irregularity. The allegations pertain only to the affairs of M/s Matritva Mini Rice Mill, which is owned and run by the petitioner’s sister-in-law, Smt. Sunita Gupta. 8. 7. From the record, it is clear that the criminal case against the petitioner is not in connection with any service-related misconduct or irregularity. The allegations pertain only to the affairs of M/s Matritva Mini Rice Mill, which is owned and run by the petitioner’s sister-in-law, Smt. Sunita Gupta. 8. The Rajasthan High Court in Mahesh Chandra Soni (supra) as well as the Bombay High Court in Sau Sheela Rameshchandra Bargaje (supra), while considering similar issues under the relevant service rules, have held that retiral dues cannot be withheld on the mere ground that a criminal case is pending against a retired employee, when such case does not arise out of or relate to his service. It has been specifically held that retiral dues such as gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund, etc., are the earned rights of an employee and cannot be denied except in accordance with law. 9. In Mahesh Chandra Soni (supra), the Rajasthan High Court has held as under:- “14. The service and retiral service gratulties are being paid under the provisions of the Pension Rules, 1996 on completion of minimum service by an employee which is equal to one-fourth of his emoluments for each completed three monthly period of qualifying service subject to a maximum of 16.5 times the emoluments. The pension is also allowed to an employee on retirement on the basis of qualifying service and the rate prescribed. The provisions of the Pension Rules, 1996 clearly speaks that the pension and gratuity are the amounts credited to the petitioner on the basis of services rendered by him with the respondents. The benefits accruing under the Rules in regard to the services rendered by the petitioner on retirement cannot be withheld because of any proceedings which do not relate to the official duties and more particularly in the matters like family disputes etc. which have nothing to do with the official duties. The judicial proceedings as referred in Rule 90 of the Rules of 1996 certainly relates to any act of an employee committed by him/her in his/her office or in connection with the official duties. A superannuated employee has no other source of income. Any deprivation of superannuation benefits therefore has serious consequences for the retired employee and his family. The judicial proceedings as referred in Rule 90 of the Rules of 1996 certainly relates to any act of an employee committed by him/her in his/her office or in connection with the official duties. A superannuated employee has no other source of income. Any deprivation of superannuation benefits therefore has serious consequences for the retired employee and his family. He may have to garner resources at this stage at considerable cost to maintain his standard of living or alternatively be forced to reduce his standard of living for no fault of his. Pension and gratuity are not bounty but constitute a right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution which cannot be deprived except in accordance with law.” 10. In Sau Sheela Rameshchandra Bargaje (supra), the High Court of Bombay has observed as under:- “9. Learned counsel also placed reliance on Rule 4(2) of the MCS Rules, 1979 and would submit that the petitioner was deemed to have been placed under suspension w.e.f. from the date of her detention, since she was detained in police or judicial custody, whether on a criminal charges or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 3 that under Rule 130(c) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (for short 'the said MCS Rules, 1982') no gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon. 10. Learned counsel placed reliance on the Rule 17 of the said MCS Rules, 1979 and would submit that against an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made under Rule 4, the remedy of appeal is available. This Writ petition thus shall not be entertained by this Court. 11. Mr. Walimbe, learned AGP for the State also supported the case of the respondent nos. 1 and 3 and would submit that under the provisions of the said MCS Rules, 1979, the petitioner is not entitled to any dues in view of the order of suspension during pendency of criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 12. A perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner was in service of the respondent no.1. 1 and 3 and would submit that under the provisions of the said MCS Rules, 1979, the petitioner is not entitled to any dues in view of the order of suspension during pendency of criminal proceedings against the petitioner. 12. A perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner was in service of the respondent no.1. The daughter-in-law of the petitioner Mrs.Tanvee Aniruddha Bargaje filed FIR with Wal Police Station against petitioner and her husband under Section 498A, 313, 323, 504, 506 read with 534 of the Indian Penal Code on 4th June, 2016. The petitioner was arrested and was produced before the Magistrate and was in custody till 21" June, 2016. The respondent no.1 suspended the service of the petitioner vide order dated 8th June, 2016 w.e.f. 6th June, 2016. The petitioner admittedly thereafter retired on superannuation. 13. It is not in dispute that the respondent nos. 1 to 3 did not initiate any department enquiry against the petitioner till her date of superannuation. The petitioner was not paid the entire amount due to the petitioner. It is the case of the respondent nos. 1 and 2, in the affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner was paid certain amounts by way of subsistence allowance including a sum of Rs.6,71,076/- towards full and final settlement of her provident fund. It is the case of the respondent no.1 that since the investigation is still pending against the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to recover any further amount from the respondent no.1. 14. Rule 4 of the said MCS Rules, 1979 provides that the appointing authority may place the Government servant under suspension where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending or where the case against him in respect of criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. Rule 4(2) of the said MCS Rule, 1979 provides for deemed suspension. 15. In our view, the suspension cannot be continued after retirement of the petitioner by superannuation, since no extension is granted for holding of any enquiry by the respondent nos.1 and 3. 16. Rule 68 of the said MCS Rules, 1981 provides that for subsistence allowance and compensatory allowances during the period of suspension. 15. In our view, the suspension cannot be continued after retirement of the petitioner by superannuation, since no extension is granted for holding of any enquiry by the respondent nos.1 and 3. 16. Rule 68 of the said MCS Rules, 1981 provides that for subsistence allowance and compensatory allowances during the period of suspension. Rule 68(2) clearly indicates that when a Government servant is convicted by a competent Court and sentenced to imprisonment, the subsistence allowance shall be reduced to a nominal amount of rupee one per month with effect from the date of such conviction and he shall continue to draw the same till the date of his removal or dismissal or re-instatement by the competent authority. If, however, he was acquitted by the Appellate Court in the meanwhile, in which case, he will draw the subsistence allowance at the normal rate from the date of acquittal by the Appellate Court. It is not in dispute that till date the petitioner has not been convicted by any Competent Authority nor has been sentence to imprisonment based on such conviction. The respondent nos. 1 and 3 therefore cannot refuse to pay any allowance to the petitioner which is in arrears today. 17. Rule 130 of the said MCS Rules, 1982, which is pressed into service by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 3 provides that no gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon. It is not in dispute that no such departmental proceedings are initiated against the petitioner by the respondent nos. 1 to 3. Insofar as the expression 'judicial proceedings' prescribed in Rule 130(1)(c) is concerned, this Court has considered similar issue in case of Shrikant Ramchandra Inamdar v/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr. in Writ Petition No. 3601 of 2018 considered by K. K. Tated, J. as his lordship then was and one of us (Abhay Ahuja, J). This Court in the said judgment considered a provision i.e. 'no gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon'. in Writ Petition No. 3601 of 2018 considered by K. K. Tated, J. as his lordship then was and one of us (Abhay Ahuja, J). This Court in the said judgment considered a provision i.e. 'no gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon'. After interpreting the said provision and after considering the fact that the petitioner therein had already retired however his gratuity dues were held up in view of the pending criminal proceedings in a property dispute with his family members, this Court accordingly held that those were not the proceedings relating to the service of the petitioner with the respondent-corporation. Therefore, the said Rule 45A(c) would not apply to the case of the petitioner.” 11. Reverting to the facts of the case in the light of aforementioned case laws, it is quite apparent that in the present case, the criminal case registered against the petitioner has no nexus whatsoever with his official duties as a Patwari. The allegations pertain exclusively to the private affairs of M/s Matritva Mini Rice Mill, which is owned and operated by the petitioner’s sister-in-law, Smt. Sunita Gupta. The petitioner is neither a partner nor has any role in the management of the said rice mill, and therefore, fastening liability upon him in respect of the said business, even if assumed for the sake of argument, cannot be treated as a service-related misconduct. In such circumstances, the pendency of the said FIR cannot constitute a valid ground for the respondents to withhold the retiral dues which are otherwise admissible to the petitioner under law. 12. It is a settled principle of law that retiral benefits such as gratuity, pension, leave encashment, provident fund and insurance benefits are not bounties payable at the sweet will of the employer; rather, they constitute valuable rights earned by an employee for the long years of service rendered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava , (2013) 12 SCC 210 has held that gratuity and pension cannot be withheld except under statutory authority, and even pendency of criminal proceedings unrelated to service does not by itself confer such power upon the State. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava , (2013) 12 SCC 210 has held that gratuity and pension cannot be withheld except under statutory authority, and even pendency of criminal proceedings unrelated to service does not by itself confer such power upon the State. Similarly, various High Courts, including the Rajasthan High Court and the Bombay High Court, have consistently taken the view that if criminal proceedings do not arise out of or relate to the discharge of official duties, retiral dues cannot be withheld on that ground. 13. Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the firm opinion that the action of the respondents in withholding the retiral benefits of the petitioner merely on account of pendency of a criminal case unrelated to his service is arbitrary, unsustainable and not in accordance with law. 14. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to release all retiral benefits of the petitioner, including gratuity, General Insurance Scheme, leave encashment and provident fund, along with any other consequential dues, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Failure to do so will entitle the petitioner to seek further remedies as may be available in law. There shall be no order as to costs.