D.L. Mehta, J.
1. The petitioner was an employee in the Education Department. FIR No. 53/64 for offence Under Section 408 IPC was filed against the petitioner at Police Station Bani Park, Jaipur. Challan was also submitted against the petitioner. Petitioner raised the objection that he cannot be prosecuted without the permission of the appointing authority. Reference was made to this Court by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 3 Jaipur City in criminal revision No. 7/71 vide his order dated 30.1.72. This Court decided the reference vide order dated 8.1.73. Reference was rejected and directions were given that the State Government will be at liberty to prosecute the accused Madan Mohan Saxena after according proper sanction in accordance with the law. Petitioner retired in the year 1971. He was claiming pension and the respondents raised the objection that the FIR is pending against him. Petitioner, filed the writ petition before this Court on 4.5.89. Respondents were served with the notices of this writ petition.
2. Respondents submitted in para no. 18 of the reply that charge-sheet has been filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 5.6.90. Investigation was complete in 1964 and the charge-sheet was submitted thereafter. This Court held on 8.1.73 that sanction for the prosecution is necessary and the petitioner can be prosecuted if the State thinks proper after according the sanction. The matter of sanction or the matter relating to the filing of the charge-sheet remained pending for more than 17 years. Petitioner retired in 1971. Naturally, now he must be of 72-73 years. It is a case of gross negligence of the investigating, agency and the officers of the State. It seems that there must be some type of conspiracy somwehere not to prosecute the petitioner and the officers of the State might have played an important role in the matter. Otherwise, the papers relating to the sanction will not remain pending for 17 years. The petitioner has been prosecuted now after the filing of the writ petition only to take a ground of defence that he has been prosecuted Under Section 408 IPC. To prosecute a person after 26 years of lodging an FIR is nothing but a glaring example of nepotism or gross negligence of the officers of the State. The Director General of Police is herby directed to take disciplinary action against those persons who are responsible for keeping the matter pending for more than 17 years after the decision of this Court. Petitioner cannot be deprived of his right of pension particulary because he has been prosecuted after 26 years of lodging the FIR.
3. The writ petition is accepted. The respondents are directed to give pension and other benefits to the petitioner according to law immediately and they should release the amount of pension and other benefits immediately. However, in case the petitioner is convicted, the respondents will have a right to recover the amount, if it is permissible under any law. The respondents will pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs, to the petitioner. The amount of pension and other benefits will be released within a period of three months from today. Copy of this order be sent to Director General of Police.