IMPORTANT POINT
Pensionary benefits can only be withheld if a charge sheet has been filed and cognizance taken in a criminal case; mere allegations without formal proceedings do not justify withholding such benefits.

JUDGMENT

A.K. Mohapatra, J.

 This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as Mr. N.K. Praharaj, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State- Opposite Parties. Perused the pleadings of the parties as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to sanction and release the final pensionary benefits, gratuity, unutilized leave salary, commuted value of pension and G.P.F. which has been withheld by the Opposite Parties even after his retirement from service w.e.f. 30.06.2018.

4. The factual background leading to filing of the present writ petition, in gist, is that the Petitioner was initially appointed as a Welfare Extension Officer on 25.09.1979. Pursuant to such appointment, the Petitioner joined in the office of the B.D.O., Chikiti in the district of Ganjam. While working as such, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant District Welfare Officer on 31.10.2010 and thereafter he was promoted to the post of District Welfare Officer on 21.2.2011.

5. While the Petitioner was working as District Welfare Officer in Boudh Collectorate, on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2018, the Petitioner has retired from service. During his incumbency as District Welfare Officer, Boudh, in the year 2013, a recruitment process to the post of R.I. was conducted in respect of the Boudh district under the Chairmanship of Collector, Boudh. The Petitioner was also a Member of the Selection Committee and he was entrusted with the work of scrutinizing the caste certificates of the candidates. During the process of such selection to the post of R.I., an allegation was made against the Petitioner relating to certain irregularities in the aforesaid recruitment process and, accordingly, a vigilance case was registered against the Members of the Selection Committee including the present Petitioner. The said case was registered as Berhampur Vigilance Case File No.89 of 2016. The list of accused persons appended to the Berhampur Vigilance File reflects the name of the Petitioner at Serial No.10. Since the Petitioner got entangled in the aforesaid vigilance case, the Petitioner has not been paid his retiral dues including pensionary benefits, gratuity etc. despite the fact that the Petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30.6.2018. Being aggrieved by such illegal conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in course of his argument submitted before this Court that in the aforesaid vigilance case, the investigation has not been concluded as of now and no charge sheet has been filed against the Petitioner. He further contended that the aforesaid Vigilance File was initiated on the basis of the allegation of certain irregularities in the recruitment process. He further contended that there is no allegation against the Petitioner of accepting any illegal gratification or the Petitioner having demanded or having been paid any money as bribe. Thus, it was contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the allegations made in the Vigilance File, referred to hereinabove, are all baseless and the same has not been established by leading evidence.

7. He further submitted that withholding of the retiral as well as pensionary benefits only on the basis of the aforesaid Vigilance File which has been created against Selection Committee members including the Petitioner, the Opposite Parties have not acted within their authority to withhold the retiral dues as well as pensionary benefits as is due and admissible to the Petitioner as per law. Moreover, it was also emphatically contended that the allegations made against the Petitioner are baseless and fake, as the same