CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10834 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 26, 2011 Ved Parkash Malik .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Tajinder Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was appointed as an Agriculture Development Officer on 17.8.1974. He was promoted as Assistant Soil Conservation Officer on 18.4.2001. Haryana Public Service Commission had approved the promotion of the petitioner with effect from 18.4.2001. While working as Assistant Soil Conservation Officer at Palwal, the petitioner was assigned the task of earth filling in the compound of Mewat Model School, Buraka. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred as Assistant Soil Conservation Officer at CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10834 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: Ferozepur Jhirka on 26.3.2003. The work was then started by Lalit Mohan, Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, who joined at Palwal. The petitioner was again re-transferred at Palwal on 8.4.2003 and got the work done costing `18.02 lacs against the sanctioned estimate of `18.96 lacs. The checking report was submitted by the Executive Engineer, Panchayati Raj. On that basis, the Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad, directed that FIR be registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 12.12.2003 and suspended on 16.12.2003. On 15.4.2004, the petitioner was reinstated. On 20.4.2005, adverse remarks were recorded in the confidential report of the petitioner for the year 2002-03. The petitioner made representation against the adverse remarks on 17.4.2006. The petitioner was charge sheeted under Rule 7 of the Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1987 in regard to the same incident. The Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges. The petitioner was prematurely retired on 12.3.2007 and, ,thus, became entitled to pension and other benefits. However, no pension was sanctioned. The petitioner was not even allowed provisional pension. As per the counsel, the provisional pension has now been granted. Some amount of G.P.Fund has also been released. Concededly, the criminal case is pending against the petitioner. The enquiry proceedings have also been completed and enquiry report submitted. Thereafter, the Department had decided to pend the orders to await the decision in the criminal case, which is against the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that he be released his pensionary benefits, to which he is entitled to. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10834 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: The provisional pension has already been sanctioned to the petitioner. Some amount of G.P.Fund has also been released. Till the completion of criminal case and enquiry, the gratuity and other amounts payable can not be released. Accordingly, no direction can be issued for releasing those amounts. The action of the respondents in keeping the enquiry pending having brought it to finality may not appear appropriate. Accordingly, directions are issued to the respondents to complete the enquiry and pass a final order and thereafter take follow up action in accordance with law. In the meantime, the amounts, which are payable and can be released pending enquiry, be released within a period of two month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner, if feels aggrieved against the final order passed on the basis of enquiry, may approach any appropriate Forum to challenge the order in accordance with law. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. September 26, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE