JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6th of May, 2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 1214/2017 and order dated 04.06.2019 passed in RPSW No. 28/2019 titled Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Lone vs. State of J&K & Ors.

2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant to the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant in the year 2014 was holding the post of Soil Conservation Assistant in the respondent Department when FIR No. 25/2014 for embezzlement of an amount of Rs. 2,47,993/came to be registered against him and three others with Vigilance Organization, Kashmir. While the FIR was under investigation, the appellant retired on superannuation w.e.f. 31st of August, 2016. He was not released his post retiral benefits despite the fact that he had completed all the requisite formalities and had obtained 'No Objection Certificate' from the concerned departments. The pensionary benefits to the appellant were denied on the ground that he was facing a criminal charge of misappropriation in FIR No. 25/2014 which, at the time of his retirement, was pending investigation with Vigilance Organization, Kashmir. The appellant represented to the respondents and sought parity with other accused in the FIR who had been superannuated by the respondents with all post retiral benefits. When no heed was paid to the repeated requests of the appellant, he filed SWP No. 1214/2017 seeking, inter alia, a direction to the respondents to give him same treatment as had been given to the similarly situated persons and grant him all the post retiral benefits. He even went to the extent of laying challenge to the FIR No. 25/2014 registered by Vigilance Organization, Kashmir, against him and three other employees of the department. The writ petition, as it appears from the impugned judgment, was vehemently resisted by the respondents. It was contended that pending investigation of FIR against the appellant and in the absence of 'No Objection Certificate' from Vigilance Organization, the appellant was not entitled to any post retiral benefits Viz. pension, gratuity, leave salary etc. The Writ Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and placing strong reliance on Article 168-D of J&K Civil Service Regulations, 1956 (CSR) concluded that in the face of registration of FIR for the offences punishable under Section 5(1)(c)(d) read with 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, Svt. 2006 and Section 120-B RPC for abuse of official position, the appellant was not entitled to pension and gratuity. Similarly the Writ Court also did not hold the appellant entitled to leave salary in view of provisions of Rule 37(2)(v) of the J&K Civil Service (Leave) Rules, 1979. The Writ Petition was, accordingly, dismissed.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant filed a review petition before the Writ Court but the same was also dismissed by the Writ Court on the ground that the appellant could not point out any error apparent on the face of record. Both the judgment of the Writ Court in the writ petition and the judgment in the review petition are subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The decision of this appeal and the entitlement or otherwise of the appellant to the post retiral benefits would turn on the interpretation of Article 168-D of the CSR and, therefore, it would be necessary to first set out Article 168-D of CSR:

"168-D. (1) Where any departmental or judicial proceeding is instituted under Art. 168-A or where departmental proceeding is continued under clause (a) of proviso thereto against an officer who has retired on attaining the age of compulsory retirement or otherwise, he shall be paid during the period commencing from the date of his retirement to the date on which, upon conclusion of such proceedings final orders are passed, a provisional pension not exceeding the ma