IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3731 of 2005 ***** Ram Badan Pandey, son of Late Kailash Pandey, resident of village-Badihan P.S. Indrapuri, District-Rohtas, retired Junior Engineer, Building Division, Aurangabad. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Bishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Bishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4. Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Bishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Building Circle, Gaya, Building Construction Department, Bihar, Patna. 6. Sri Shiv Prasad Singh, son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as Executive Engineer, Building Division, Aurangabad. 7. The Treasury Officer, Aurangabad. 8. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. …. …. Respondents ----------- 4. 2.2.2009. After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, earned counsel for the State and the Accountant General one aspect has crystallized that the petitioner has been sanctioned and paid his pension. The gratuity and leave encashment has been held up because the petitioner has not accounted for a sum of Rs.5,00,422.50, which was given to him as advanced in the construction of the Aurangabad Divisional Jail. It is now being stated in the supplementary counter affidavit that the matter has now drawn the attention of the Vigilance Department, Government of Bihar and an enquiry is going on into the matter. With the above given background and pleadings, the Court does not want to exercise its discretion on the matter of release of withheld gratuity and leave encashment of the petitioner at this stage, but the Court would like the Vigilance Department to complete its - 2 - investigation and enquiry into the matter and submit a final report in this regard before the competent authority. If on enquiry the liability of the petitioner is not established or partially established then the respondent would be obliged to consider release of the withheld amount of gratuity and leave encashment. But if the liability is comes to be fixed upon the petitioner then vigilance will take the matter to its logical end. It is hoped and expected that a year’s time should be enough for a matter of this kind. The writ application stands disposed of with the above direction. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)