Pramath Patnaik, J.

In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner, has inter alia, prayed for quashing part of letter as contained in Memo dated 18.01.2008 (Annexure 10) communicating him that a sum of Rs. 4,80,743.95 is recoverable from him, and further sought a guideline with regard to payment of retiral dues including the benefit of 1st and 2nd A.C.P Scheme along with interest @ 18 % per annum on all the dues from the date of retirement till the actual payment.

2. The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell is that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Sevak in the year 1966. After rendering considerable years of service, the petitioner along with others were granted Junior Selection Grade and Senior Selection Grade and also Super Time Selection Grade vide Memo dated 30.07.1996. The petitioner was put under suspension vide Memo dated 5.6.2002 in contemplation of a departmental proceeding but neither charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner nor any Enquiry Officer was appointed. In the meantime, the petitioner superannuated from services w.e.f 28.02.2003, while he was under suspension. After retirement, when the petitioner was not paid retiral dues, he approached this Court for redressal of his grievances invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that impugned order under Annexure 10 is not legally sustainable in view of the specific provision under Rule 43(b) of the Jharkhand Pension Rules. Apart from that, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the respondent revoking the order of suspension after retirement from services as disclosed in Annexure GB dated 4.9.2009 of the counter affidavit is not legally sustainable since petitioner retired much prior to the revocation of the suspension. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged departmental proceeding, which was initiated on 11.2.2003 has not culminated to its finality, therefore, in absence of any specific finding under departmental proceeding no amount is recoverable from the petitioner. Moreover, the alleged omission, so far as recovery of alleged amount of Rs. 4,80,743.95, stated to have been taken as loan by the petitioner, is nothing but an attempt on the part of the respondents to cause prejudice so as to deprive the petitioner from getting legitimate post retiral benefits. It has been submitted that recently, the petitioner has been granted provisional pension. Referring to supplementary counter affidavit dated 22.07.2016, in particular paragraph 5, 6, and 7, it has been submitted that the proceeding, which was initiated against the petitioner has not been concluded and no final order has been passed. It has been submitted that in view of the categorical affidavit filed by the respondents-authorities, the impugned order under Annexure 10, so far recovery of the aforesaid amount is concerned, is not legally sustainable.

4. As against the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, J.C to S.C. (L & C), appearing for the State, reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit submits that the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from 1.11.1996 to 17.08.2001. It has further been submitted that the petitioner while posted at Pakur Block a sum of Rs. 4,80,743.95 is shown as advance against him in respect of various schemes, as stated in letter dated 18.07.2000 by Block Development Officer, Pakur. Learned counsel for the State further submits that though from 18.08.2001 to January, 2002, the pay of the petitioner has been withdrawn and is kept in the office till date but he has not appeared for receiving the salary due to his unauthorized absence. Learned counsel for the State also referred to the supplementary counter affidavit dated 22.07.2016, wherein it has been averred that vide memo dated 5.6.2002 by the then Deputy Commissioner, P