Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/5369/2017 on 19 March, 2021
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/14
GAHC010200902017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Writ Petition (Civil) no. 5369/2017
Smti. Bahnisikha Dutta
Wife of Sri Bidyut Dutta
R/o BF 46 Nayan Cooperative
Housing Society, Street No. 169 AA 1 New Town,
Kolkata - 700156, West Bengal
...............Petitioner
-Versus-
1. The State of Assam
represented by the Commissioner and Secretary
to the Government of Assam, Personnel Department,
Guwahati - 6
2. The Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance
Department, Dispur, Guwahati - 6
3. The Accountant General, Assam
Beltola Maidamgaon
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Cachar, Silchar
5. The Treasury Officer, Cachar, Silchar
...................Respondents
Advocates :
For the Petitioner
Heard Mr. D.P. Borah
For the Respondent nos. 1 & 4
Mr. M.R. Adhikary, Additional Senior Government Advocate
Page No.# 2/14
For the Respondent no. 2 & 5
Mr. P. Nayak, Standing Counsel, Finance Department
For the Respondent no. 3
Mr. C. Baruah, Standing Counsel, Accountant General (A&E), Assam
Date of Hearing
25.02.2021
Date of Judgment & Order
19.03.2021
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
By this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent authorities for
disbursement of her retirement benefits which the respondent authorities stated to have
been withhold.
2. The background facts, in brief, which are necessary for the purpose adjudication of this
writ petition are exposited as follows : the petitioner was a member of the Assam Civil
Service (ACS) and she retired from service on 28.02.2013 on reaching the age of
superannuation from the post of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) in the Cachar Zilla Parashid.
2.1. After the retirement of the petitioner on 28.02.2013, two criminal cases - Silchar
Police Station Case no. 714/2013 and Silchar Police Case no. 776/2013 came to be
registered in Silchar Police Station wherein the petitioner was named as one of the accused
persons. Both the cases were registered on the basis of First Information Report
(FIR)/complaint lodged by two different private persons.
2.2. One Sri Fokrul Islam Laskar, representing himself to be the General Secretary of a
registered NGO filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar,
Page No.# 3/14
Silchar wherein he named four persons including the petitioner, as accused. The complaint
was registered as Complaint Case no. 316/2013 and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Cachar, Silchar forwarded the said complaint to the Officer In-Charge under Section
156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('the Code', and/or 'CrPC', for short) to cause
investigation after registering a case. On receipt of the said complaint and treating it as the
FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Silchar Police Station registered a case being Silchar Police
Station Case no. 714/2013 (G.R. Case no. 1257/2013) under Sections
120B/409/420/468/471/477-A/34, Indian Penal Code (IPC) on 07.04.2013 and initiated an
investigation.
2.3. One Sri Muktadir Hussain Laskar, a resident of Cachar district also filed a complaint
before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar naming four persons
including the petitioner, as accused therein. On receipt of the said complaint, it was
registered as Complaint Case no. 328/2013. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar,
Silchar also forwarded the said complaint to the Officer In-Charge, Cachar, Silchar under
Section 156(3), CrPC for registering a case and to cause investigation. On receipt of the
same and treating it as the FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Silchar Police Station registered a
case being Silchar Police Station Case no. 776/2013 (G.R. Case no. 1360/2013) for
offences punishable under Sections 120B/406/408/409/419/ 420/466/468/34, IPC on
14.04.2013.
2.4. In the aforesaid two cases, two accused persons named therein which includes the
petitioner, are common while the other two accused persons are different. All the accused
persons were/are, however, employees under the Cachar Zilla Parishad. The allegations in
both the FIRs are regarding alleged misappropriation, cheating, forgery, etc. in respect of
huge amount of fund by the accused persons when the petitioner was serving as the Chief
Executive Officer in the Cachar Zilla Parishad.
2.5. Another criminal case being Silchar Police Station Case no. 738/2013 (G.R. Case no.
1300/2013) came to be registered on 10.04.2013 on the basis of an FIR dated 09.04.2013
lodged at the instance of the Chief Executive Officer In-Charge, Cachar Zilla Parishad,
Page No.# 4/14
Silchar. The said case has been registered under Sections 120B/406/409/420/468/471, IPC
read with Sections 7/13(1)(c)/13(1)(d)(ii)/13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
wherein also allegations of misappropriation, cheating, forgery, criminal misconduct, etc.
have been levelled against a number of employees of the Cachar Zilla Parishad including
the petitioner.
2.6. Apprehending her arrest in connection with the aforesaid three criminal cases, the
petitioner approached this Court by three applications - AB no. 1576/2013, AB no.
1578/2013 and AB no. 1579/2013 - seeking the benefit of pre-arrest bail under Section
438 of the Code. When by orders dated 15.05.2013 all the three applications were
rejected, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by three Special
Leave to Appeals (Criminal) - SLP(Crl) no. 4841/2013, SLP(Crl) no. 4842/2013 and
SLP(Crl) no. 4843/2013. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after having taken note of
the facts and circumstances of the case, disposed of the three Special Leave to Appeals
(Criminal) by a common order dated 02.09.2013 with the direction that in the event of her
surrender or arrest within 4 (four) weeks from that date, the petitioner shall be enlarged
on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/the Court in seisin of the case, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code.
2.7. Pursuant to the order dated 02.09.2013, the petitioner surrendered before the Court
of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar on 19.09.2013 and she was released
on bail in terms of the order dated 02.09.2013 on execution of bail bonds. But immediately
after such release of the petitioner on bail, she was arrested in connection with another
case, Silchar Police Station Case no. 2063/2013 (G.R. Case no. 3688/2013) registered
under Sections 120B/406/409/420/468/471, IPC. The said case was registered on
19.09.2013. After such arrest, the petitioner approached this Court by an application, BA
no. 2603/2013 seeking bail under Section 439, CrPC. This Court by an order dated
08.10.2013, allowed the bail application by observing that the allegations made in the FIR
of Silchar Police Station Case no. 2063/2013 were substantially the same allegations made
in the earlier three cases registered at the Silchar Police Station, referred above.
Page No.# 5/14
3. Heard Mr. D.P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Adhikary, learned
Additional Senior Government Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 4. Also heard Mr. P.
Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for respondent nos. 2 and 5 and Mr.
C. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Accountant General (A&E), Assam for respondent no.
3.
4. Mr. Borah has submitted that the petitioner retired from service on 28.02.2013 on
reaching the age of superannuation and the writ petition was preferred on 24.08.2017,
that is, after more than 4 years when pension and other retirements benefit were not
released to the petitioner. An interim direction was also sought for grant of provisional
pension. During the pendency of the writ petition, the provisional pension from January,
2017 to the petitioner was released on 24.11.2017.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no departmental proceeding
was initiated against the petitioner prior to her retirement on 28.02.2013. All the criminal
cases, mentioned above, have been instituted against the petitioner on dates subsequent
to her retirement and in none of the cases, the police after completion of investigation has
submitted any charge sheet against the petitioner till date. The provisions in Rule 21 of
Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 does not empower the State Government to
withhold pension and other retirement benefits of an employee unless it is established in a
departmental proceeding or in a judicial proceeding that the employee is guilty of grave
misconduct during the period of his/her service. Since the petitioner has not been found
guilty of any grave misconduct or negligence during the period of her service, the
petitioner is entitled to receive the pension and other retirement benefits from the date
immediately after the date of retirement and the action on the part of the State
respondents in withholding the same is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. Drawing attention of
the Court to the documents annexed to the writ petition, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the husband of the petitioner had undergone kidney
transplantation and open heart surgery while the petitioner herself is suffering from serious
ailments like insulin - dependent diabetes, osteoporosis and vertigo. The authorities in the
Silchar Medical College have found permanent physical disability of the petitioner to the
Page No.# 6/14
extent of 20% and certifying to that effect the Medical College has issued a certificate. The
petitioner and her husband are in need constant medical attention. Because of non-
disbursal of the retirement benefits of the petitioner, the family of the petitioner is
undergoing severe financial stress. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance in
the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Jharkhand and others vs.
Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210, and of this Court in
Birendra Rajbangshi vs. State of Assam and others, reported in 2016 (4) GLT 920.
6. In reply, the learned State counsel has submitted that although the petitioner had
retired on superannuation on 28.02.2013, the allegations regarding financial improprieties
allegedly committed by the petitioner had surfaced subsequently with the lodgement of
the FIRs, mentioned above. Since the amount alleged to be misappropriated by the
accused persons of the said criminal cases are huge, the State respondents, he submits,
are justified in not releasing the pension and other retirement benefits to the petitioner
since she is one of the accused persons therein. It is his submission that when the
allegations of misappropriation of fund of the State Exchequer are being investigated, it is
well within the authority and jurisdiction of the State respondents to withhold pension and
other retirement benefits in respect of an employee against whom such grave charges are
levelled. He has also, like the learned counsel for the petitioner, drawn reference to the
provisions of Rule 21 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 to justify the action of
withholding the pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner. With his
submission, he has sought to contend that since FIRs have been lodged against the
petitioners, the Government under powers conferred by Rule 21 of the Assam Services
(Pension) Rules, 1969 can withhold the pension and other retirement benefits. He has
extensively referred to the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of
the respondent no. 1 in support of his submissions.
7. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 has submitted that no
pension proposal in connection with the petitioner has been received at the end of the
Accountant General (A&E), Assam. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 5
has also submitted in similar manner.
Page No.# 7/14
8. I have duly considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and
also perused the materials made available through the pleadings of the parties.
9. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was a member of the Assam Civil Service
and she retired from service on 28.02.2013 on reaching the age of superannuation. Prior
to her such retirement on superannuation, the petitioner was serving as the Chief
Executive Officer in the Cachar Zilla Parishad.
10. A perusal of the contents of the FIRs/complaints of the afore-mentioned criminal
cases registered at Silchar Police Station against the petitioner and other accused persons
goes to show that the allegations are with regard to misappropriation, cheating, forgery,
criminal misconduct, etc. in respect of fund allotted to Cachar Zilla Parishad and such
financial irregularities were stated to have been committed just before or on the date of
retirement of the petitioner when she was serving as the Chief Executive Officer in the
Cachar Zilla Parishad. The respondent no. 1 in support of its action of withholding the
pension and other retirement benefits like death-cum-retirement gratuity (DCRG), has
relied on a report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar to the Principal Secretary
to the Government of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department on
08.04.2013. In the said report, the Deputy Commissioner after making an enquiry, had
reported that there were deliberate negligence in maintenance of books of accounts in the
Cachar Zilla Parishad and the involvement of the then CEO, Cachar Zilla Parishad i.e. the
petitioner could not be ruled out in defalcation of government money. It appeared to him
that the defalcation of the government money could be possible in collusion with the other
employees of Cachar Zilla Parishad. By forwarding the report, the Deputy Commissioner
had sought for a high level enquiry to unearth the complete details of financial
irregularities for taking necessary action against the erring employees. The respondent no.
1 has also referred to another enquiry report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner,
Cachar on 28.03.2013 wherein also allegations of financial irregularities were reported.
11. The respondent no. 1, in the affidavit-in-opposition, has stated that the petitioner had
Page No.# 8/14
submitted her pension papers on 11.01.2013. On receipt of the same, the pension papers
were processed for onward transmission to the office of the Accountant General (A&E),
Assam for finalization of the petitioner's pension and gratuity. It has been further stated
that even a letter under memo no. AAJ.50/77/Pt/320-A dated 25.04.2013 (Annexure-3 to
the affidavit-in-opposition) was prepared by the Personnel Department for forwarding the
pension papers to the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam but the Principal
Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat and Rural Development Department
vide his letter no. PDA.113/201/16 dated 17.05.2013 (Annexure-5 to the affidavit-in-
opposition) requested the Personnel Department to withhold the pension and other
retirement benefits in respect of the petitioner on the ground that the matter had been
referred to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption. It is further stated that when the Pension
and Public Grievances Department was moved by the Personnel Department, the Pension
and Public Grievances Department had advised not to forward the pension papers of the
petitioner to the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam for finalization and also to
withhold the DCRG and Leave Encashment Benefits till the finalization of the cases and to
draw departmental proceeding against the petitioner, since retired. The stand of the
respondent no. 1 is that due to such advice, the pension papers of the petitioner have not
been forwarded to the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam for finalization of her
pension and DCRG.
12. In the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no. 1, it has also been stated that the
provisional pension has been sanctioned to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.03.2013 till the
issuance of the final Pension Payment Order (PPO) by the Personnel Department on
18.05.2013. It has been further stated that the Leave Encashment Benefits have also been
sanctioned to the petitioner by the Personnel Department on 30.03.2013. For payment of
General Provident Fund (GPF), the requisite application along with relevant papers had
been forwarded to the office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam by the Personnel
Department on 22.12.2014. The matter regarding GIS has not been finalized as the
petitioner did not submit the requisite application.
13. From the stand taken by respondent no. 1 in its affidavit-in-opposition, it is noticed
Page No.# 9/14
that the pension and the DCRG have not been sanctioned and released in favour of the
petitioner till date in view of the advice made by the Panchayat and Rural Development
Department as well as by the Pension and Public Grievances Department, as have been
noted above.
14. In the aforesaid fact situation, the question that has arisen for consideration is
whether it is permissible on the part of the State Government to withhold the aforesaid
retirement benefits by invocation of the provisions of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules,
1969. In this connection, the provisions contained in Rule 21 of the Assam Services
(Pension) Rules, 1969 is of import and relevance. For ready reference, the relevant parts of
Rule 21 is extracted hereunder :
"21. The Governor of Assam reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a
pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of
ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused
to Government, if, in a departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found
guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including
service rendered upon re-employment after retirement provided that -
(a) such departmental proceeding, if instituted while the officer was in service, whether
before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of
the officer, be deemed to be a proceeding under this rule and shall be continued and
concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the
officer had continued in service ;
Explanation - The continuation of the proceeding after the final retirement of the
officer shall be automatic under sub-rule (a) of Rule 21 and no fresh decision of the
Governor and/or the Appointing Authority nor any show-cause notice to the person
concerned shall be necessary.
The powers under Rule 21 shall be exercisable not only in case of causing pecuniary
loss to Government but also in all other cases.
(b) such departmental proceeding, if not instituted while the officer was in service,
whether before his retirement or during his re-employment -
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Governor of Assam;
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before
such institution ; and
Page No.# 10/14
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Governor of
Assam may direct and in accordance with procedure applicable to departmental
proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to
the officer during his service ;
(c) no such judicial proceeding, if not instituted while the officer was in service,
whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in
respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than 4 years
before such institution only;
(d) the Assam Service Commission shall be consulted before final orders are passed.
Explanation - For the purpose this rule-
(a) a departmental proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which
the statement of charges is issued to the officer or pensioner, of if the officer has been
placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and
(b) a judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted-
(i) in the case of a criminal proceeding, on the date on which the complaint or
report of police officer, on which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made, and
(ii) in the case of a civil proceeding, on the date of presentation of the plaint in
the Court."
15. From Rule 21, quoted above, it is evident that the State Government is empowered to
withhold or withdraw a pension or a part of it of a government employee, permanently or for
a specified period and also to recover the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the
government from the pension only in the event the pensioner is found guilty of grave
misconduct or negligence during the period of his service in a departmental proceeding or in
a judicial proceeding. Rule 21 has also prescribed in clear terms that if a departmental
proceeding is not instituted while the government employee was in service and before his
retirement, then the departmental proceeding shall not be instituted in respect of a cause of
action which arose or any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution.
By the Explanation (a) provided thereto, it has been explained that a departmental
proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges
is issued to the government employee or pensioner or if the government employee has been
placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date. By Explanation (b), it has, inter-
alia, been explained that a judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted in the case of
Page No.# 11/14
a criminal proceeding, on the date on which the complaint or report of police officer, on
which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made.
16. This Court on 19.02.2021 had made a query to the learned State counsel to inform as
to whether any departmental proceeding is pending against the petitioner. The learned State
counsel has placed before the Court a communication dated 23.02.2021 of the Department
of Personnel, issued under hand of the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, wherein
it is stated that no departmental proceeding is pending against the petitioner. In the FIRs of
Silchar Police Station Case no. 714/2013, Silchar Police Station Case no. 738/2013, Silchar
Police Station Case no. 776/2013 and Silchar Police Station Case no. 2036/2013, allegations
were made of commission of financial improprieties by the petitioner during her service
period while she was in service as the CEO in the Cachar Zilla Parishad. The petitioner retired
from service on 28.02.2013 on superannuation. Admittedly, the allegations of financial
improprieties are related to events that occurred more than 4 years earlier prior to the date
of filing of the writ petition i.e. 24.08.2017. Thus, it is not permissible on the part of the
State respondents to initiate any departmental proceeding regarding any cause of action
which arose or any event alleging financial improprieties on the part of the petitioner at this
distant point of time when more than 4 years have elapsed in the meantime.
17. Though investigations were initiated in respect of the aforesaid four criminal cases
against the petitioner as an accused but till date, none of the said criminal cases has
culminated into a report under Section 173 of the Code finding a prima facie case of
commission of any offences alleged against the petitioner. From the meaning ascribed to
judicial proceeding by Explanation (b) to Rule 21 for the purpose of the said rule, the date of
institution of a criminal proceeding which comes under the purview of judicial proceeding, is
the date on which the report of the police officer is made and on which the Magistrate takes
cognizance. Section 190(1), CrPC contains the provision for taking cognizance of offences by
the Magistrate. Sub-clause (b) of Section 190(1), CrPC has specifically provided for taking of
cognizance of any offence by the Magistrate upon a police report of such facts. As per
definition provided in Section 2(r) of the Code, 'police report' means a report forwarded by a
police officer to a Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 173, CrPC. A police report
Page No.# 12/14
under Section 173(2) is forwarded to a Magistrate when upon completion of investigation,
any offence appears to have been committed and against such accused by whom such
offence appears to have been committed. Such police report is also known interchangeably
as charge sheet. Nothing has been placed/brought on record by the State respondents to
indicate that police report/charge sheet has been submitted by police in any of the cases
registered against the petitioner, mentioned above. As no police report/charge sheet has
been filed in any of the said criminal cases, the question of finding the petitioner guilty of
grave misconduct or negligence does not arise as on date since the same will be relevant
only when the final verdict(s) is/are delivered in any of those cases after trial(s) by a court of
law.
18. A pari materia provision contained in Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, like
Rule 21 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, came up for consideration before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme
Court after consideration of the pari materia provision contained in Rule 43(b) in Jitendra
Kumar Srivastava (supra), has observed as under :-
"11. From the reading of the aforesaid Rule 43(b), following position emerges:
(i) The State Government has the power to withhold or withdraw pension or any part of it
when the pensioner is found to be guilty of grave misconduct either in a departmental
proceeding or judicial proceeding.
(ii) This provision does not empower the State to invoke the said power while the
departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding are pending.
* * * * * * * *
*
13. A reading of Rule 43(b) makes it abundantly clear that even after the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, it is permissible for the Government to withhold pension, etc. only when a finding is recorded either in departmental inquiry or judicial proceedings that the employee had committed grave misconduct in the discharge of his duty while in his office. There is no provision in the Rules for withholding of the pension/gratuity when such departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings are still pending."
Page No.# 13/14
19. The decision in Birendra Rajbangshi (supra) which is in the context of Rule 21 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, has been rendered following Jitendra Kumar Srivastava (supra).
20. It is no longer res-integra that the right to receive pension has been held to be a right to property protected under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India which says that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The pension is payable to the government employee because of long, continuous and dedicated period of service and it is not to be treated as a bounty payable at the will and pleasure of the Government. The right to receive pension and other retirement benefits is a valuable right vested in a government servant. The matters of pension and the DCRG in the case in hand, are regulated and governed by the provisions of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 made in exercise of the powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India are legislative in character and are constitutional rules, though made by the executive. Thus, the pension and the DCRG are rights and the payment of these do not depend upon the discretion of the Government but those are governed by the rules and a government servant coming within the said rules is entitled to claim pension and the DCRG. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the employee not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules . Thus, it is not permissible to withhold the disbursement of pension as well as the gratuity payable to the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 merely by any executive decision of the Panchayat and Rural Development Department and/or the Pension and Public Grievances Department, as have been sought to be done in the present case, prior to any finding reached by a Court of law in a judicial proceeding holding the petitioner guilty of grave misconduct or negligence. Until proved guilty, the service career of the petitioner cannot be held to a blemished one.
21. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the Page No.# 14/14 decision to withhold the pension and other retirement benefits of the petitioner, on the ground cited for such withholding, is illegal and unsustainable. In such view of the matter, this writ petition stands allowed with the direction to the State respondents to take all the necessary steps forthwith to process the pension papers of the petitioner which were received by them as far back as on 11.01.2013 and thereafter, to finalize and make payment of the pension and other retirement benefits as may be found due to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. If any further formalities are required to be done at the end of the petitioner the same shall be informed to the petitioner immediately and the petitioner on being so informed, shall comply accordingly in the interregnum period.
22. It is made clear that since the investigations of the afore-mentioned criminal cases against the petitioner are pending as on date, it shall not be understood that this Court has made any opinion as regards the cases (supra) registered at Silchar Police Station where allegations of financial improprieties are made against the petitioner and it is for the State Government to take such further action against the petitioner permitted by law depending of the outcome of the criminal proceedings arising therefrom.
22. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant