- (1.) This petition has been preferred against the order passed by respondent No. 2 Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture and Sugarcane Development, Jharkhand, Ranchi dated 21.11.2009(Annexure-3 to the memo of petition) whereby 10% of the pension and gratuity of the present petitioner has been withheld by the Government on the ground that vigilance inquiry is going on against the present petitioner.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that in fact inquiry is going on and nothing has been concluded or decided in criminal matter against the present petitioner by any competent Court. No charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner. No inquiry has been conducted and no report has been given against the present petitioner for any misappropriation of the amount. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that under Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules,2000 unless the petitioner is found guilty in a departmental proceeding or in a judicial proceeding, his pension cannot be withheld by the respondent-authority. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by this Court reported in 2008 (1) JCR 5 (Jhr)(FB) as well as decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Patna High Court, reported in 1999 (3) PLJR 949 as well as decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1995 (2) PLJR (SC) 51 and decisions rendered by Hon'ble Supreme court reported in , (2007) 6 SCC 704 and further submitted that looking to the aforesaid decisions also there is no power vested in the Government to withhold 10 per cent of the pension and gratuity amount, merely because some inquiry is going on and so long as inquiry is concluded against the present petitioner, amount of pension and gratuity cannot be withheld by the respondents. Moreover, before passing the impugned order at Annexure-3 dated 21.11.2009 no notice was given to the petitioner nor any opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner otherwise all these facts and correct proposition of law, would have been pointed out by the petitioner, to the authorities concerned. Thus, impugned order is also violative of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner retired on 28.02.2009 as Director, Agriculture, Ranchi, Jharkhand and he was given promotion by the detailed report given by the committee concerned which is Annexure-4 to the memo of the petition dated 09.01.2009 and in paragraph 7 of the said report it is has been stated that there is nothing against the present petitioner and therefore petitioner was given promotion in the month of January, 2009. Thus, vigilance clearance certificate was also given in the month of January, 2009 and thereafter petitioner reached at the age of superannuation on 28.02.2009 and the respondents have withheld 10 per cent of the pension and gratuity amount by the impugned non-speaking order dated 21.11.2009 and therefore the said order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the respondents who has submitted that vigilance inquiry case is going on against the present petitioner which was instituted prior to his retirement and therefore 10 per cent of the pension amount as well as gratuity amount has been withheld by the respondents, in view of the provisions of rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules, 2000 and therefore the impugned order passed by the respondents at Annexure-3 dated 21.11.2009 is absolutely in consonance with the facts of law and therefore petition deserves to be dismissed.;