IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that pensionary benefits cannot be withheld solely due to the non-issuance of a Vigilance Clearance Certificate when there are no pending judicial proceedings against the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for all the respondents.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that while he was serving as Duftry in the Department of Art and Culture, Naharlagun, a criminal complaint was lodged against the petitioner which was registered as Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 19/2012 alleging that the petitioner has prepared fake allotment orders and the signature of the Director was forged. The petitioner was thereafter placed under suspension by an order dated 10.02.2012, under Rule 10 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The order of suspension of the petitioner was extended from time to time. In the meanwhile, the competent authority had also grant sanction for prosecution vide order dated 06.03.2014. It is projected that the petitioner had participated in the inquiry conducted by the Crime Branch, Police Station (SIT). Thereafter, the suspension of the petitioner was not extended and on representation submitted by the petitioner, by order dated 29.08.2016, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked by the Director, Art & Culture, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. While in service, the petitioner superannuated on 30.04.2023.

3. The petitioner submitted all the relevant documents for processing of his pension. It is projected that the petitioner had applied for grant of No Objection Certificate from the Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex, Itanagar and Vigilance Clearance Certificate from the Secretary, Department of Vigilance, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The Deputy Commissioner, Capital Complex issued a No Objection Certificate dated 28.04.2023, to the petitioner and the Under Secretary (Vigilance), Government of Arunachal Pradesh had also issued a Vigilance Clearance Certificate dated 25.05.2023, to the petitioner.

4. However, the Under Secretary (Vigilance), Government of Arunachal Pradesh by another communication dated 16.06.2023, which is impugned in this writ petition, has cancelled the earlier Vigilance Clearance Certificate issued on 25.05.2023 on the ground that the same was issued inadvertently and a SIC (Vig) P.S. Case No. 8/2015 had been registered against the petitioner under Sections 120 B/468/471/34 IPC. Accordingly, the representation field by the petitioner, having not being addressed, the present writ petition has been filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Per contra, learned Senior Government Advocate by placing reliance on the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 has submitted that in view of the policy decision of the State vide order No. VIG-71/2014/365 dated 25.02.2020, a guideline has been made by the Commissioner (Vigilance), Department of Vigilance, Government of Arunachal Pradesh which makes it mandatory for a Vigilance Clearance Certificate for release of pension after retirement. In the said context, the learned Senior Government Advocate has submitted that the said order dated 25.02.2020, being a policy decision, which is not under challenge, the petitioner is disentitled for release of his pension benefit without a Vigilance Clearance Certificate being issued on his favour. It is further submitted that the petitioner is involved in criminal prosecution under Sections 120 B/468/471/34 IPC in connection with SIC (Vig) P.S. Case No. 8/2015 which was earlier registered as Naharlagun P.S. Case No. 19/2012, for which the respondent authorities cannot process his pension papers for want of Vigilance Clearance Certificate.

6. There is no document appended to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 to demonstrate that any order has been passed in the name of the Governor of the State of Arunachal Pradesh and/or any other competent authorities, reserving right of the Government to withhold the pension of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no document available on record to show that