LOUREMBAM JILA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR; JOINT SECRETARY(PENSION CELL), GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR, IMPHAL, MANIPUR; ACCOUNT GENERAL, A& E, IMPHAL, MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While the petitioner was serving as Joint Director (Vety), a criminal case was registered against him as VPS Case No. 22(6)06 u/s 409/420/12-B of the Indian Penal Code and also u/s 13(1)(C) read with section 13(2) of PC,1988. In connection with that case, he was taken into custody. Since he remained in custody for more than 48 hours, petitioner was placed under suspension on 26.7.2006. During his suspension, the petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation, was retired on 9.2.2009 while he was under suspension. Much before that, a proceeding was initiated under the provisions of "The Manipur Public Servant Personal Liability Act 2006" (hereinafter refers to as the Act of 2006) for determining the illegal action of the petitioner causing unauthorized liability upon the State Government. On 17.6.2010 Principal Secretary (Finance), Govt. of Manipur passed an order in the said proceeding for recovery of a sum of Rs.53,16,608/- out of the total alleged misappropriation amount of Rs.1,88,83,124/-. That order was challenged before this Curt in WP(C) No. 525 of 2010.

(2.) This Court, having found that impugned order has been passed without following procedure laid down under the Rules, was pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 17.6.2010 giving liberty to the respondent to start a fresh inquiry in terms of the Act and Rules. During hearing of the matter, it was placed before me that in terms of the order passed by this Court, proceeding has been initiated but still it has not been concluded.

(3.) Mr. Tarunkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that right to receive pension is recognized under the law as a right to property in terms of Art.300A of the Constitution of India which right cannot be taken away in absence of any statutory provision. In this regard, it was further submitted that the authority under the garb of the proceeding taken under the said Act of 2006, has been withholding the pension and other retiral benefits. But, none of its provisions or rules made thereunder puts an embargo over the right to withhold the pension and other retiral benefits. Further submission which was advanced is that only on a determination of illegal act on the part of a person causing unauthorized liability upon the State, the State, in terms of Rule 6 of saidRule of 2006, can recover the amount of unauthorized liability determined from the salary of the public servant or even after superannuation but that determination of illegal action causing unauthorized liability should have been determined before public servant gets retired on superannuation. As nothing is there either under the Act or the Rule even after superannuation of public servant which empowers the Government to continue with the proceeding under the Act or Rule to determine unauthorized liability and to recover it from the salary or from the retiral benefit any withholding of pension or other retiral benefits before culmination of the proceeding under the Act or the Rule that too before a public servant gets retired on superannuation is illegal and thereby the authority be directed to release the amount of pension and retiral benefits due to be paid to the petitioner.