IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.647 of 2010 SUDARSHAN RAM, S/O LATE DAMARI RAM, R/O VILL.- GOPALPUR, P.O.- BAKERGANJ, P.S.- HUSSAINIGANJ, DISTT.- SIWAN, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT - LAKSHMIPUR SISWAN DHALLA, P.O.- SIWAN, DISTT.- SIWAN ……………………PETITIONER / APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, BIHAR, PATNA, 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, BIHAR, PATNA, 4. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR, PATNA, 5. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, PATNA .. …………………………RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2. 06.04.2010. Re. I.A. No. 3328 of 2010. This is an application for condonation of delay of more than four years in preferring the appeal. Mr. Satyabir Bharti, A.C. to A.A.G. III fairly stated that he has no objection for condonation of delay as the petitioner was sanguinely following the remedy of review. In view of the aforesaid, the delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. I.A. no. 3328/2010 is allowed. Re. L.P.A. No. 647 of 2010. As we have condoned the delay, we are inclined 2 to take up the appeal for admission. Admit. Mr. Satyabir Bharti, A.C. to A.A.G. III and Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned counsel accept notices on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 3, 5 and 4 respectively. On consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is finally heard. In this intra-court appeal, challenge is to the order dated 02.12.2005 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 249 of 2001 wherein it has been held that as a criminal case was pending against the writ petitioner he was not entitled to get full pension and gratuity. It is submitted by Mr. Chakrapani, learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant stood superannuated on 30.11.1999 and, at that juncture, no criminal case was pending against him. On a query being made, learned counsel fairly stated that presently he is an accused in criminal cases which are pending for adjudication but the same were initiated on the complaints lodged in the years 1992 and 1993. On a perusal of the documents on record it is 3 perceptible a sanction order was issued on 29th October, 2002. It is worth noting the complaint was made in the year 1992 and during investigation the complicity of the appellant came into light. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned single Judge that he is an accused in a criminal case cannot be found fault with. In view of the aforesaid, withholding of 10% of the dues cannot be treated to be erroneous. However, regard being had to the fact that the appellant had superannuated in the year 1999 it would be advisable on the part of the learned trial judge to proceed with the trial with quite promptitude and dispose of the same. We may hasten to clarify any observation made by the learned single Judge in the order impugned and our non-interference should not be construed that we have reflected in any manner with the records of the case as far as the criminal cases are concerned. We have only affirmed the order of the learned single Judge keeping in view the rule position as engrafted under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. With the aforesaid observations the appeal stands 4 dismissed without any order as to costs. Dilip ( Dipak Misra, C.J. ) ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. )