A.K. Sikri, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) CRISP and short question which arises for consideration in these cases is as to whether, in the absence of any provision in the Pension Rules, the State Government can withhold a part of pension and/or gratuity during the pendency of departmental/criminal proceedings? The High Court has -answered this question, vide the impugned judgment, in the negative and hence directed the Appellant to release the withheld dues to the Respondent. Not happy with this outcome, the State of Jharkhand has preferred this appeal. For the sake of convenience we will gather the facts from Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 1427 of 2009. Only facts which need to be noted, giving rise to the aforesaid questions of law, are the following: The Respondent was working in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries. He joined the said Department in the Government of Bihar on 2.11.1966. On 16.4.1996, two cases were registered against him under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code as well as Prevention of Corruption Act, alleging serious financial irregularities during the years 1990 -1991, 1991 -1992 when he was posted as Artificial Insemination Officer, Ranchi. On promulgation of the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000, State of Jharkhand (Appellant herein) came into existence and the Respondent became the employee of the Appellant State. Prosecution, in respect of the aforesaid two criminal cases against the Respondent is pending. On 30th January, 2002, the Appellant also ordered initiation of disciplinary action against him. While these proceedings were still pending, on attaining the age of superannuation, the Respondent retired from the post of Artificial Insemination Officer, Ranchi on 31.08.2002. The Appellant sanctioned the release and payment of General Provident Fund on 25.5.2003. Thereafter, on 18.3.2004, the Appellant sanctioned 90 percent provisional pension to the Respondent. Remaining 10 percent pension and salary of his suspension period (30.1.2002 to 30.8.2002) was withheld pending outcome of the criminal cases/departmental inquiry against him. He was also not paid leave encashment and gratuity.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved with this action of the withholding of his 10 percent of the pension and non -release of the other aforesaid dues, the Respondent preferred the Writ Petition before the High Court of Jharkhand. This Writ Petition was disposed of by the High Court by remitting the case back to the Department to decide the claim of the Petitioner for payment of provisional pension, gratuity etc. in terms of Resolution No. 3014 dated 31.7.1980. The Appellant, thereafter, considered the representation of the Respondent but rejected the same vide orders dated 16.3.2006. The Respondent challenged the rejection by filing another Writ Petition before the High Court. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The Respondent filed Intra Court Appeal which has been allowed by the Division Bench vide the impugned orders dated 31.10.2007. The Division Bench has held that the question is squarely covered by the full Bench decision of that Court in the case of Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. : 2007 (4) JCR 1. In the said full Bench judgment dated 28.8.2007, after detailed discussions on the various nuances of the subject matter, the High Court has held: To sum up the answer for the two questions are as follows: (i) Under Rule 43(a) and 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules, there is no power for the Government to withhold Gratuity and Pension during the pendency of the departmental proceeding or criminal proceeding. It does not give any power to withhold Leave Encashment at any stage either prior to the proceeding or after conclusion of the Proceeding. (ii) The circular, issued by the Finance Department, referring to the withholding of the leave encashment would not apply to the present facts of the case as it has no sanctity of law.;