NARAYAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the petitioner in person and Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari, learned A.A.G.-XI for the State. Petitioner served the State Government as Director General of Police. While still in service an F.I.R. bearing No. 1/2007 (Special Vigilance Unit) (in short S.V.U.) was lodged on 6.2.2007 against him under diverse sections of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Annexure-C to the supplementary counter affidavit). On conclusion of investigation the charge-sheet was submitted (Annexure-D to the supplementary counter affidavit). By yet another order dated 9.2.2007 (Annexure-3) he was placed under suspension. By order dated 29.6.2007 (Annexure-8) he was released from suspension. In the afternoon of 30.6.2007 the petitioner superannuated from service.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have sanctioned only provisional pension (90%) and have withheld the gratuity amount of the petitioner payable upon superannuation. Petitioner has also raised grievance that between the period 9.2.2007 to 29.6.2007 (48 days) he is required to be treated on duty and paid salary for the said period. It is also his contention that once he has been released from suspension with effect from 29.6.2007 he is entitled to be paid salary for 30.6.2007 when definitely he was in service which was the last working day of the petitioner in service.

(3.) It is contended by the petitioner that in view of the provisions contained in All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 the respondents could not have withheld payment of pension and gratuity. It is further submitted that the rule contemplates a rider of four years in the matter of initiation of such department and/or judicial proceeding. Admittedly the charge-sheet in the present case pursuant to conclusion of criminal investigation was not filed while the petitioner was in service. It is also argued that charges in the departmental proceeding was not framed while he was in service. The submission of the petitioner is that the respondents have failed to take appropriate action within the time stipulated under the relevant rules and as such they cannot withhold payment of full pensionary benefits. It is next argued that he has not been held guilty either in the departmental and/or judicial proceeding initiated against him. He is, therefore, entitled to his full post retiral dues.