IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. 4358 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 12th January, 2010. Satish Kumar Salwan Petitioner through Mr. Sanjay Tangri, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to release his retiral benefits including leave encashment along with interest @ 18% w.e.f. the date of his retirement till the actual payment. The petitioner has further sought a direction for re-fixation of his pay and pension after regularization of the period of suspension w.e.f. 27.2.1982 to 24.2.1993 and again from 28.10.1994 to 11.1.1995 and thereafter release the arrears of pay and pension along with interest. The petitioner joined the respondent Department as a Dispensary Superintendent on 28.11.1980 and retired from the aforesaid post on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2005. His pension and gratuity were released after a period of almost nine months, i.e., on 9.10.2006. The rest of the retiral benefits were still withheld, prompting the petitioner to approach this Court. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the official respondents have filed their counter affidavit. It transpires from the counter-affidavit as well as the office order dated 27.2.2009, which the petitioner has placed on record (Annexure P-9) that there were two departmental actions pending against the petitioner. The first charge-sheet pertained to “illegal purchase of medicines in violation of the government instructions as well as violation of the orders of the seniors/officers”. The second charge-sheet contained very serious allegations of mis-appropriation of the medicines and material worth Rs.4,56,858/-. The two spells of suspension period, already noticed above, are also referable to both the aforementioned charge-sheets. Notwithstanding the findings returned by the Inquiry Officer against the petitioner in both the proceedings, the Competent Authority has passed the aforementioned order dated 27.2.2009 whereby recovery of Rs.10,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner. While the first spell of suspension period has been ordered to be treated as kind of the leave due, the second suspension period has been treated as sine-die. In my considered view so long as the petitioner was facing disciplinary action on the allegations of misappropriation of medicines and material worth Rs.4,56,858/-, the respondents were justified to withhold some of the retiral benefits so that in the event of the charges being proved, recoveries could be effected from the petitioner. At the same time, the respondents were expected to decide the disciplinary proceedings at the earliest, especially when the petitioner had retired from service on 31.12.2005. Ms. Charu Tuli, learned Senior DAG, Punjab states that the arrears of retiral benefits have already been released and payment of leave encashment which was withheld pending disciplinary action has also been ordered to be released to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to release the arrears of leave encashment to the petitioner within a period of two weeks. Keeping in view the nature of allegations faced by the petitioner during his service period, I am not inclined to grant him any interest. However, the petitioner is entitled to re-fixation of his pay and pension in accordance with the Rules, after regularization of the suspension period and orders to this effect shall be passed by the Competent Authority within a period of three months and if found entitled, the arrears shall also be paid within a period of two months thereafter. Disposed of. Dasti. January 12, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE