(1.) The petitioner before this Court is a retired Sales-tax Officer, Class-II. On 29th June, 2002, the Commissioner of Sales-tax ordered that the petitioner should retire from service on 30th June, 2002. It was further directed that in view of the inquiry pending with the Anti Corruption Bureau, the retiral dues of the petitioner be governed under Rule 189-B of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The petitioner has lodged his objection against the said communication on 8th July, 2002. In answer thereto, under order dated 3rd September, 2002, the petitioner has been ordered to be paid the pension due and payable to him as provisional pension but the gratuity due and payable to the petitioner has been ordered to be withheld on the ground that on the date of the retirement of the petitioner, the departmental inquiry was pending against him. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
(2.) Mr.Jhaveri has submitted that no disciplinary action was ever initiated against the petitioner during the period of his service. On the date of his retirement from service, neither any disciplinary action nor any criminal prosecution was pending against the petitioner nor any amount was due and payable by the petitioner. There was no earthly reason why the petitioner should not have been paid all his retiral benefits on reaching the age of superannuation.
(3.) In answer to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent has appeared and contested the petition. It is submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income. The matter was pending with the Anti Corruption Bureau and was forwarded to the Vigilance Commission. In view of the said inquiry entrusted to the Vigilance Commission, under Rule 189-A of the Rules the State Government has power to withhold the pension payable to the petitioner and, under Rule 189-B of the Rules, the Government has power to withhold the amount of gratuity.