The court established that the lack of a charge-sheet against the petitioner does not prevent the issuance of a Vigilance Clearance Certificate, asserting rights to pensionary benefits under Article 300A.

JUDGMENT :

Robin Phukan, J.

Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents No.1 and 2; Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department representing respondent No.3 as well as Mr. M. Kato, learned Dy.S.G.I. for the CBI representing respondent No.4.

2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing direction, particularly to the respondent No. 2 to issue a Vigilance Clearance Certificate, so as to enable the Department of Personnel to process his pensionary benefits.

3. Mr. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was serving as Principal attached to the office of the D.D.S.E., Pasighat, Education Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, and he retired from service on superannuation on 31.05.2024. He also submits that though the petitioner has submitted his pension papers, the same could not be processed due to want of a Vigilance Clearance Report from the Vigilance Department and on account of the same, the petitioner has been suffering considerable hardship. He further submits that the right to pension and pensionary benefits is a constitutional right protected under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972.

3.1 Mr. Tara, further submits that the Vigilance Department has not issued the Vigilance Clearance Certificate on account of the petitioner being arrested by the C.B.I. in C.B.I. P.S. Case No. RC-172022A0009, registered under Sections 406 /407/409/120B of the IPC read with Sections 7 /8/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in connection with the infamous APPSC paper leakage case. Subsequently, vide order dated 10.01.2023, the petitioner was granted bail by the learned Special Judge (P.C.A.), Yupia in B.A. No. 06 of 2022. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him by serving a memorandum of charges dated 27.01.2023, and he was placed under suspension. However, the said suspension order was interfered with by this Court in WP(C) No. 454(AP) of 2023, vide order dated 18.03.2024, and thereafter, the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, revoked his suspension and attached him to the office of the D.D.S.E., Pasighat, East Siang District.

3.2 Mr. Tara, also submits that the contention of the Vigilance Department is that, as per the Vigilance Manual, a report has to be called for from the Investigating Officer. Accordingly, a report was sought for from the C.B.I., the Investigating Agency, which has also been impleaded in the present petition as respondent No. 4 and it has filed an affidavit-in-opposition also.

3.3 Drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph No. 7 of the affidavit filed by the C.B.I., Mr. Tara, submits that the petitioner was not charge-sheeted by the C.B.I., and his name has been kept in Column No. 12 of the charge-sheet due to lack of sufficient evidence. However, his son, Shri Loth Ezing and his wife, Smti Pasang Kotin Ezing, have been charge-sheeted in the said case. Mr. Tara, therefore, submits that since the petitioner has not been charge-sheeted by the C.B.I., there is no bar in issuing a Vigilance Clearance Certificate by the Vigilance Department and as such, he contended that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities, particularly respondent No. 2, to issue the Vigilance Clearance Certificate to the petitioner within a period of 7 (seven) days from today, so that the concerned Department c