Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant: M/s Rajeev Ranjan, Abhay Kumar Mishra.
For the Respondents: Mr. K.K. Jhunjhunwala.

Key Points: - The appellant, Dr. Dudh Nath Pandey, retired on 30.6.2001 as District Animal Husbandry Officer and is an accused in CBI fodder scam case RC 47(A)/96, which remains pending (!) (!) (!) . - After retirement, 90% provisional pension was granted, but 10% pension, full gratuity, and full leave encashment were withheld by order dated 6.6.2003 under Rule 43(b) of Bihar Pension Rules pending the criminal case (!) (!) (!) . - Rule 43(b) permits withholding or withdrawing pension only if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct in concluded departmental or judicial proceedings, not during pendency (!) (!) (!) . - Rule 43(b) does not empower withholding leave encashment at any stage, as it is not covered under the rule and partakes the character of salary (!) (!) (!) . - Finance Department Circular dated 6.7.1993 lacks force of law, as it is merely executive instruction without statutory backing under Article 300-A, and was not cited in the impugned order (!) (!) (!) (!) . - Precedents from Supreme Court and High Courts confirm no power to withhold pensionary benefits without a finding of guilt post-proceedings (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Full Bench quashed the withholding order and Single Judge's dismissal, holding State has no power to withhold under Rules 43(a)/(b) during pendency (!) (!) .

Whether the Government has got power to withhold pension, gratuity and leave encashment amount on the ground of pendency of judicial or departmental proceeding?

Whether the circular or guidelines issued by the Finance Department including the Circular No. 4564 dated 6.7.1993, conferring powers for withholding payment of Gratuity and leave encashment on the ground of pendency of judicial or departmental proceeding is legal, valid and has got force of law?

Whether in absence of any rule/guideline, the State Government has jurisdiction to withhold leave encashment or part of it, permanently or temporarily, or can recover the leave encashment, on the ground of pendency of a departmental or criminal proceeding or on the ground that the retired employee has been convicted in a judicial proceeding or found guilty in a departmental proceeding?