IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1010 of 2005 HARI NARAIN SAH son of late Ramdeo Sah resident of village Sarai P.s.Sarai Dist.Vaishali. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar 3. Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar 4. Deputy Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, 5. Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. Respondents. ----------- 4. 11.1.2010. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur for the petitioner, Mr. Hari Narain, learned AC to AG-2 and Mr. Amar Nath Singh learned counsel representing the Accountant General. The petitioner had filed this writ petition for payment of his full pension and release of gratuity amount withheld since 31.8.2002 having retired from the post of Additional District magistrate. It is an admitted position that the entire admissible retiral dues to which the petitioner is entitled, has been made over to him save and except 10% of pension and the entire amount of gratuity which is being withheld by the respondent authorities. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent no.3 and in para-10 thereof, it has 2 been stated that as the charges levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature, hence, 10% amount of pension and entire gratuity has been withhold pending disposal of a vigilance case and the departmental proceeding initiated against him. Mr. Thakur, submits that till date, no proceeding in the name of the petitioner has been initiated nor even memo of charges has been handed over to him although a period of more than seven and half years has lapsed since his retirement. He further submits that the respondent authorities have no jurisdiction to withhold the retiral dues of the petitioner on the pretext of vigilance case. Learned counsel for the Accountant General submits that as the authorisation of the pension and gratuity had been sought by the competent authorities of the State Government to the extent of 90% of the pension only, and no papers for sanction of gratuity had been forwarded, the Accountant General has simply acted on the basis of the sanction orders issued by the State Government. Learned counsel for the State has failed 3 to convince the court whether any proceeding had been initiated against the petitioner except that the report of the petitioner in relation to some incidence was found wanting and it is subject matter of a vigilance case. The arbitrary action of the respondents is further manifest from the fact that no order has been passed for withholding 10 % pension and full gratuity of the petitioner Reference in this regard is made towards a Bench decision of this Court reported in 2004 (4) PLJR 5 (Baliram Pandey Vs. The State of Bihar & ors). The learned Single Judge, relying upon a Division Bench judgment reported in 1999(3)PLJR 949 (Bajrangdeo Narain Singh Vs. The State of Bihar & ors), has held that the pensionary dues payable to an employee including the gratuity amount cannot be withheld until such time that any order of penalty is passed in a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The respondents thus have acted contrary to the position setted under the judgment(s) rendered by this court, on the issue. The amounts being withheld even in absence of any order further perpetuates the arbitrariness. 4 Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the judgments (supra), this writ petition is allowed and respondent nos.3 and 4 are directed to process the pension and gratuity papers of the petitioner for release of balance 10% amount of the pension as well as the entire amount of gratuity for necessary authorisation by the Accountant General within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The concerned authority in the office of the Accountant General shall issue the necessary authorisation within two weeks therefrom. The writ petition stands allowed. ahk (Jyoti Saran,J.)