KARYA NAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For an omission and commission committed by the petitioner as incharge of Malkhana and non-production or vanishing of evidence in a vigilance case, he was not only proceeded departmentally but even a criminal case had been instituted against him. The criminal case is pending for long and only recently in the year 2011, a charge-sheet has been filed. The trial will run its course. How many years it is going to take is not for this Court to make a guess but the grievance of the petitioner that he virtually stands exonerated in the departmental proceeding as it was all left to the criminal court is borne out from Annexure-2. Now, his post retiral dues is not being sanctioned or authorized due to pendency of a criminal case and is matter of concern as per the petitioner. As of today, petitioner has only been charge-sheeted before a criminal court. If he is found guilty, the conviction order shall form the basis for future decision under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules. But till that stage is reached and as the authority did not find him guilty and left it to the criminal court with regard to his culpability, it is good enough for this Court to give a direction upon the respondents to settle the retiral dues of the petitioner.

(2.) Sure enough they can put a rider in the said authorization that if the petitioner stands convicted in the criminal case, State maintains its right and will have the liberty to take appropriate decision on the entitlement of the petitioner to continue with the benefit of pension. Pendency of the criminal case will not come in the way of the petitioner to demand or beget benefit of retiral dues. Writ is disposed of with a direction upon the respondents that they shall process and expedite the authorization of the claim of the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of production of a copy of this order.