Anjana Mishra JUDGMENT
Anjana Mishra, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the order dated 07.02.2018 and 18.01.2018 passed in CWJC No. 6048 of 2017, whereby the learned single Judge has declined to pass an order for payment of full gratuity with interest to the appellant only on the ground of pendency of a criminal case involving disproportionate assets, though in the departmental proceeding the allegation against the petitioner has not been substantially proved and an order to deduct 10% of pension amount payable to the petitioner has already been passed.
2. The appellant had moved this Court in CWJC No. 6048 of 2017 seeking release of full amount of gratuity payable to the petitioner and also to direct the release of the full amount due to him by way of unutilized leave which was payable to the petitioner. The writ petitioner had further prayed for payment of interest over such dues, which became payable to him after his superannuation in the month of January, 2016.
3. The brief facts, which led to the filing of the writ application, is that the petitioner-appellant was made an accused in Economic Offence Unit P.S. Case No. 18 of 2014 dated 19.03.2014 in respect of an offence alleging acquiring of assets disproportionate to his income. Accordingly, a departmental proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner wherein a final order has been passed on 29.11.2016 (Annexure 4 to the writ application), by which it has been ordered that 10% of the pension amount shall permanently be deducted from the petitioner, apart from the order not to pay anything except subsistence allowance during the period of suspension.
4. It was submitted that even after lapse of three and a half years of lodging of the criminal case, neither there was any sanction accorded by the department nor was any chargesheet submitted by the prosecution, i.e. Economic Offence Unit. It was submitted that the petitioner superannuated from regular service in December, 2015 whereas the case against the petitioner was lodged on 19.03.2014 and since chargesheet has not been submitted, it was inappropriate for the department to withhold the gratuity and also the leave encashment.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the learned single Judge has already passed orders in favour of payment of leave encashment to the petitioner, the said part is not under challenge, but the withholding of gratuity as payable to the petitioner after the date of his superannuation is his sole grievance, which is to be considered by the Court. It is submitted that the learned single Judge has erroneously held that the payment of gratuity is not permissible considering the fact that the departmental proceeding as well as the judicial proceeding is pending.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the petitioner had already been subjected to an order of deduction of 10% of the pension amount, even though in the departmental proceeding, the charges have not been substantially proved and, thus, there was no substantial allegation against the appellant-petitioner. It was urged that even the conducting officer had reported that there was no question of any disproportionate income, but the allegation was regarding purchase of a Mahindra SUV vehicle on loan without disclosing it in the list of assets.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that withholding of gratuity on petitioner's superannuation was wholly illegal and unwarranted as gratuity is a legal right under law and interest is payable on the amount of gratuity if it is withheld after its due date of payment. Furthermore, it was urged that the gratuity is a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300A of the........