- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that as a consequence of Office order contained at Annexure -4 dated 19.2.2001 issued by the District Panchayatraj Officer, Ranchi under the direction of Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi only 75% of the pension has been paid to him and payments of Group Insurance, Gratuity, Provident Fund has been withheld. The said order was passed in terms of Rule 43(B) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules in lieu of the criminal proceeding initiated against the petitioner. The respondent no.2, Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has filed an affidavit in which it has been stated that on charges of defalcation of Government money in connivance with the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, the petitioner who was panchayat Sevak was proceeded against in the criminal case being F.I.R. No. 22 of 1996 lodged at Silli Police Station. The departmental proceeding was also initiated vide memo dated 28.4.1997 and the Conducting cum Inquiry Officer was appointed on 20.12.2000. The departmental proceeding was not concluded as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner due to the fact that criminal case of the petitioner was sub - judice. The same could not be concluded till his retirement and, therefore, the order under Rule 43(B) of the Jharkhand Pension Rule was issued on 19.2.2001(Annexure -4) as well as Annexure -E to the counter affidavit. However, the respondents have stated that 75% of the pension of the petitioner has been released; he has also been paid leave encashment of 240 days; final withdrawal of G.P.F amounting to Rs. 117244/ - on the basis of Authority slip dated 31.12.2002 issued by the District Provident Fund Officer and Group Insurance amount has also been released. Further, retirement gratuity amounting to Rs. 108953/ - has also been released though there was restrain upon release of such amount as per the order contained at Annexure -4. Respondents have also stated that the petitioner has been convicted vide judgment dated 20.12.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1 st Class and his appeal is still pending before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. In such circumstances, the respondents have justified the issuance of order vide Annexure -4.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, in such circumstances, submits that respondents be directed to take step in respect of the departmental proceeding as the same has remained pending for almost 12 years after issuance of Annexure -4 in 2001.;