The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Rule 21 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, which prohibits the initiation of departmental proceedings for events that took place more than 4 years before such institution, and Rule 201, emphasizing expeditious payment of D.C.R.G.

T. Nandakumar Singh, J.

1. Heard Mrs. N.S. Thakuria, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner as well as Mr. B. Ghosh, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. By this writ petition, the writ petitioner is assailing the letter of the Assistant Inspector General of Police (R) dated 30.12. 2004 directing the Superintendent of Police, D.I. (E.O.) Assam, Guwahati to hold up the payment of the provisional D.C.R.G. amounting to Rs. 2,26,086/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty six thousand and eighty-six) only to the present writ petitioner who had been retired on superannuation as early as 31.01.2004 and also for a direction to the respondents to make payment of the said provisional D.C.R.G. of Rs. 2,26,086/- to the petitioner.

3. The writ petitioner filed this writ petition basing on the fact that the petitioner was working as an Inspector of Police in the Home Department, Govt. of Assam.

4. In the year 1991 when the petitioner was working as a Sub-Inspector of Police as I/C Traffic, Panbazar P.S., the then "Requisition Branch", City Reserve, Guwahati, requisitioned a vehicle (Ambassador Car) bearing Regn. No. AMM 1288 and it was allotted to him for official duties by the then Superintendent of Police, City, Guwahati vide Memo No. GCR(R)/464-67 dated 20.12.1991. After the petitioner was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police (UB) B.I.E.O., he was released from the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, I/C of Traffic Panbazar as early as 20.07.1992 vide release order No. GCP(R)/90000-7 dated 20.07.1992. It is also stated that the requisition of the vehicle and also the payment of the hiring charges of the vehicle were dealt with by the Requisition Branch. Such being the situation, the petitioner had no hand in the requisition of the vehicle and also in the payment of the hiring charges of the vehicle requisitioned.

5. The Superintendent of Police, Bureau of Investigation (EO), Assam, Guwahati issued an order dated 11.03.2004 that in pursuance of the Memo No. E/II-1411/42/PT-XIII/5-A, dated 01.11.2001 of the Inspector General of Police (OSD) Assam, Guwahati on attaining of 58 years of age the petitioner was allowed to go on retirement on superannuation w.e.f. 31.01.2004, a copy of which is available at Annexure-P/1 to the present writ petition. Admittedly, the petitioner had already been retired on superannuation from his service as Inspector of Police as early as 31.01.2004. After his retirement, the concerned authority after following the procedures prescribed in the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, the amount of D.C.R.G. to be paid to the petitioner had already been calculated amounting to Rs. 2,26,086/-. The amount so calculated would be cleared from the order of the Inspector General of Police (OSD), Assam, Guwahati dated 21.12.2004, and a copy of the said order of the Inspector General of Police (OSD), Guwahati dated 21.12.2004 is also available at Annexure-P/5 (a) to the present writ petition.

6. Such being the situation, both the parties, i.e. the petitioner and the state respondents are not disputing the amount of D.C.R.G. to be paid to the petitioner; but the only dispute is, in the facts and circumstances of this case, whether the said amount of D.C.R.G. is to be released/paid to the petitioner immediately or not.

7. According to the petitioner, surprisingly he received a copy of the show cause notice dated 26.10.2004 asking him to submit his show cause statement about the alleged non-payment of balance of the hiring charges of the vehicle mentioned above, i.e. the Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. AMM 1288 which was admittedly allotted to the petitioner in the year 1991. It is the case of the petitioner that the show cause notice dated 26.10.2004 admittedly relates with an incident or occurrence said to have been taken place in the year 1991. Mrs. N.S. Thakuria, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Clause (ii) of