IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5988 of 2005 MURLIDHAR SINGH son of late Sadhu Saran Singh resident of village and P.O. chakai P.S. Dhangai District-Bhojpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The D.G. cum I.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. The D.I.G. of Police C.I.D. Bihar, Patna. 4. The Superintendent of Police,(C) C.I.D. Bihar, Patna. 5. The A.G. Bihar, Patna. ----------- 5 16.02.2010 Heard Mr. Pranav Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gyan Prakash OJha, A.C. to G.A. 7 for the State and learned counsel for the Accountant General. The petitioner who retired from the post of Havaldar with effect from 31.8.1998 filed the writ petition for payment of his regular pension and gratuity together with other consequential benefits. Admitted position is that during the pendency of the proceeding other post retiral benefits has been received by the petitioner except that he is drawing provisional pension and the amount of gratuity has been withheld for the reason that two bills amounting to Rs. 9875/- and Rs. 1200/- respectively were misplaced by this petitioner and for which a - 2 - vigilance case was instituted giving rise to Vigilance case No. 13 of 1997 on 23.6.1997 under the provisions of Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is not the case of the respondents that the money in question which is approximately Rs.11,000/- was misappropriated by the petitioner. The only allegation is that the said sum of approximately Rs.11,000/- had been misplaced by this petitioner and for which the matter is pending since 1997 before the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction. As a consequence thereof the petitioner having retired almost 12 years from today is going without regular pension and his entire gratuity amount has been withheld. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State and in which it has been stated that by reason of the pendency of the vigilance case the petitioner was being given provisional pension and that the department had decided to withhold gratuity until the disposal of the case in exercise of power under the Bihar Pension Rules. A copy of the order dated 9.6.2005 passed by the Superintendent of - 3 - Police, CID, Bihar Patna has been placed at Annexure-A of the counter affidavit sanctioning provisional pension to the petitioner. Having regard to the accompanying circumstances of the case it is clear that the petitioner has been subjected to undue harassment at the hands of the respondents on a mere allegation of misplacement of some bills, the amount of which is around Rs. 11,000/-. Even in absence of any allegation of misappropriation, the entire gratuity of the petitioner has been withheld and he has been sanctioned only provisional pension that also in pre-revised scale. Although a casual statement has been made in the counter affidavit regarding the decision to withhold the same but no order is placed on record of the proceedings. The petitioner during the course of proceeding has filed a copy of the final form submitted in the vigilance case in favour of the petitioner as back as on 12.1.2007. Taking into consideration the final form submitted in favour of the petitioner and having regard to the circumstances that there - 4 - is no positive order withholding the amount(s) in question as also having regard to the fact that no charge of misappropriation is being alleged against the petitioner, I am convinced that the petitioner has been subjected to undue harassment and the amounts in question has been unjustly withheld by the respondents. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent No.4, the Superintendent of Police (C) C.I.D. Bihar, Patna is directed to take expeditious steps to recalculate, revise and finalise the pension and gratuity of the petitioner and forward the same for obtaining authorization by the Accountant General within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. The Accountant General shall issue necessary authorization within four weeks of receipt of such orders sanctioning pension and gratuity by the respondent No.4 and whereafer the pension and gratuity of the petitioner together with arrears would be paid to him within four weeks following thereafter. It is expected that the respondent authorities of the State and the Accountant General would adhere - 5 - to the time granted in the order for the reason that the petitioner is a retired employee of the year 1998. Bibhash (Jyoti Saran, J. )