- (1.) The petitioner was initially appointed as Inspector with the respondent--Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mill Limited (hereafter 'RSGSML') on 14.7.1983. In due course he was promoted as Manager in which capacity he came to be posted at the RSGSM Bottling Plant, Jhunjhunu. During that posting a FIR No.66/2005 came to be registered on or about 7.04.2005 against 9 persons including the petitioner on the basis of omnibus allegations at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur (Chowki-- Anti Corruption Bureau, Jhunjhunu) for offences under Sections 13(1) (c), (d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereafter 'the Act of 1988') and Sections 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC in respect of alleged transport of 185 bottles of liquor from the bottling plant without a gate pass and without payment of permit fee. The FIR recorded that on the source/ information with the ACB of unauthorized movement of liquor bottles from the bottling plant of RSGSML at Jhunjhunu and its seizure, albeit the permit fee was subsequently paid and gate pass also so generated it was of no consequence for reason of being an afterthought and a cover up. On investigation into the FIR in issue, the police (ACB) sought sanction for the petitioner's prosecution alongwith others named in the FIR which was so granted on or about 10.7.2008. That sanction for prosecution came to be challenged in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1439/2008 by the petitioner as also by the other accused separately. Albeit initially an interim order to the benefit of the petitioners was passed by the Court, the Criminal Misc. Petition itself came to be dismissed on 8.12.2015. Since then, admittedly no further progress in the investigation in FIR No.66/2005 has been made and challan not yet been filed even as of today.
(2.) Meanwhile the petitioner, earlier under suspension, which was then revoked on 29.7.2009, has since superannuated on 30.6.2017. The petitioner's gratuity and leave encashment to which he was entitled to under the operating service Rules i.e. the RSGSML Employees Service Rules, 2000 (hereafter 'the Rules of 2000') not having been paid, he is before this Court in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate directions.
(3.) Reply opposing the petition has been filed, as has also been an additional affidavit of one Jay Anant Mathur, Senior Manager (A&P), RSGSML to the same end.;