- (1.) The present petition has been preferred for getting Pension, Leave Encashment, Group Insurance, General Provident Fund, Gratuity and such other retirement benefits mainly for the reason that the petitioner has retired on 31st May, 2007, as the Principal from the respondents-school.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the respondents, has submitted that departmental and criminal proceedings are pending against the present petitioner for misappropriation of a very sizable amount to the tune of Rs. 8,75,499/-. Criminal proceedings are also pending for the very same purpose and, therefore, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the retirement benefits have been withheld and a decision will be taken after the criminal matter is over or after the departmental proceedings, initiated against the present petitioner is over. Nonetheless, it is also submitted by learned Counsel for the respondents that departmental proceedings will be completed, as expeditiously as possible and practicable.
(3.) Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: (i) the present petitioner is facing a charge of misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 8,75,499/-. (ii) a communication, dated 20th January, 2009, has also been shown by learned Counsel for the petitioner to this Court, which has been taken on record. There is no denial of this letter, dated 20th January, 2009, by the petitioner. No denial letter has been given to the concerned respondents-authority, but, there is a denial, by way of rejoinder in this writ petition. It appears, prima facie, that the allegation is not denied so far, even after expiry of approximately a period of one year and, prima facie, it goes against the petitioner. (iii) it also appears from the facts of the case that in the criminal matter also some report has been given by the Police and the order of the trial court is awaiting upon the said report of the Police. (iv) it also appears from the facts of the case that even if there is a report in favour of the present petitioner on the criminal side, still departmental proceedings can be initiated because both civil as well as criminal proceedings are on different footing. Criminal proceedings are on the basis of strict standard of evidences, whereas, in departmental proceedings standards of evidence are preponderance of probabilities. Thus, standard of evidence of departmental proceedings as well as that of criminal side evidence are quite different. (v) it, prima facie, appears that a letter dated 20th January, 2009, putting allegation of misappropriation of Rs. 8,75,499/- has not been denied so far by the petitioner before the concerned respondents-authorities. A bare, denial in the writ petition without writing any denial letter to the concerned respondents-authorities speaks volume about the petitioner. As the departmental proceedings are awaiting, I am not much analyzing the facts on record. Nonetheless, I also direct the concerned respondents-authorities that if they want to start the departmental proceedings or departmental enquiry it must be initiated and completed, as expeditiously as possible and practicable and without any loss of time and, therefore, at this stage, I am not inclined to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (vi) Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of this Court, as reported In 2007 (4) J.C.R. Page No. 1. Looking to the facts of the present case and the facts of the reported case, there is vast difference between the two, as stated here-in-above, and it appears that the letter issued by the respondents dated 20th January, 2009 by the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi, i.e. Respondent No. 3, putting allegation of the misappropriation of amount at Rs. 8,75,499/- is not denied, at all, by the petitioner before the said authority who has issued this letter nor even this letter has been replied and learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out that whether reply has been given to the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi or not. (vii) Petitioner is getting provisional pension to a sizable extent. Behaviour of petitioner has been stated in Para 8 & 9 of counter-affidavit filed by District Education Officer. In these set of circumstances, the facts of present case are quite different from the reported case. As stated here-in-above, if there is no denial of the charge, perhaps, there is no need of even inquiry. Be as it may, the fact remains that the facts of the present case are quite different from the facts of the aforesaid reported decision and hence, at this stage, I am not inclined to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in favour of the petitioner. A liberty is reserved with the petitioner to move this Court in future at appropriate stage.;