JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. N. Borah, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Chaliha, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, Assam, appearing for the respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. R.K. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, AG(A&E), Assam, representing the respondent no. 3.

2. The writ petitioner herein, was serving as the Senior Finance & Accounts Officer in the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department under the Government of Assam. He was also holding the additional charge of Finance & Accounts Officer, in the Directorate of Social Welfare. The petitioner retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation, with effect from 30/11/2021. While in service, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner, based on which, ACB PS case No. 19/2016 was registered under sections 120(B)/468/420/409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with sections 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on charges of corruption. The petitioner was arrested on 27/02/2017 in connection with the ACB PS case No. 19/2016. However, by order dated 29/05/2017 passed by this Court in Bail Application No. 513/2017, the petitioner was enlarged on bail. After retirement, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by issuing the memorandum of charge dated 30/05/2022. The respondent No.2 had accordingly, called upon the petitioner to submit his statement of defense within 10(ten) days. The two allegations brought against the petitioner were pertaining to negligence in duty and gross violation of financial procedure and rules.

3. Assailing the memorandum dated 30/05/2022, the writ petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition on twin grounds. Firstly, that in view of Rule 21(b)(ii) of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (for short “Rules of 1969”), no departmental proceeding could have been initiated against the petitioner after his retirement in respect of events which took place more than 4 (four) years before the institution of the departmental proceeding. Secondly, there is no valid ground for the authorities to withhold the pension of the petitioner years after his retirement. Hence, a writ of mandamus has been prayed for.

4. Mr. Bora has argued that the departmental proceeding is barred by limitation. In support of his above stand, Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court to the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules of 1969 and has also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210 as well as another decision of this Court rendered in the case of Sushil Kumar Baruah Vs. State of Assam and others reported in 2007 (1)GLT 533, to argue that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner was not maintainable in the eyes of law. Mr. Borah further submits that the respondents cannot refuse to settle the pension of the petitioner since there is no valid legal proceeding drawn up against the petitioner wherein, he has been found to be guilty.

5. Mr. A. Chaliha, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2, on the other hand, has fairly submitted that there was delay in initiation of departmental proceeding against the petitioner due to non-receipt of relevant documents from the Social Welfare Department but according to Mr. Chaliha, if three months time is granted by this court, than in that event, the departmental proceeding drawn against the petitioner will be concluded.

6. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 did not make any submission responding to the plea raised in the writ petition.

7. After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both the sides, this court is of the opinion that the core issues that would arise for consideration in this case are as to whether, the departmental proceeding drawn against the petitioner vide charge memo dated 30/05/2022 was maintainable in the eyes of l