Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, prayer is to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction commanding the Respondents to pay the petitioner the amount deposited in the G.P.F. accounts with interest @ 18%, interest at market rate on delayed payment of post-retirement benefits, namely, pension, gratuity, leave encashment and to quash that part of the impugned order dated 9-3-1999, contained in Annexure-1, whereby and whereunder a sum of Rs. 49,844.50 from the amount of unutilised earned leave salary has been deducted. Petitioner has filed application for amendment in which he has challenged the validity of the order dated 4-11-1999 (Annexure-23) rejecting his representation dated 7-6-1999 against the impugned order dated 9-3-1999 (Annexure-1). 2. In short, the relevant facts are that the petitioner retired from the post of Registrar, Finance Department with effect from 31-1-1995 and submitted his relevant papers for payment of post-retirement benefits in November, 1995 to which there was no response for more than four years, but finally was paid the amount of pension, gratuity, leave encashment in the month of June, 1999 and the amount of G.P.F. in the year 2000, that too after deducting Rs. 49,844.50 from the sanctioned amount of unutilised earned leave. It appears that prior to his promotion as Registrars the petitioner was posted as Section Officer-cum-Cashier from 17-8-1989 to 28-2-1994. On his promotion he did not hand over the charge of Rs. 4,41,497.25 to his successor. As a result thereof an F.I.R. was lodged against him on 7-6-1995 in Secretariat Police Station for the charges of financial theft and mismanagement. He moved the District & Sessions Judge, Patna for grant of Anticipatory Bail in which the Court vide its order dated 3-7-1995 directed him to. explain the alleged financial theft and mismanagement to the Finance Department. The petitioner was accordingly asked to hand over the charge of Rs. 4,41,497.25 vide letter No. 3565 dated 18-7-1995 by the Finance Department and he was again reminded about the same vide letter No. 4155 dated 19-8-1995. Petitioner submitted records and vouchers against Rs. 4,41,597.25 on 2-9-1995 and after thorough perusal of the records and vouchers final decision in the matter was taken on 17-4-97 and 15-10-98 and it was found that Rs. 49,844.50 was to be paid by the petitioner. Petitioner submitted records and vouchers against Rs. 4,41,597.25 on 2-9-1995 and after thorough perusal of the records and vouchers final decision in the matter was taken on 17-4-97 and 15-10-98 and it was found that Rs. 49,844.50 was to be paid by the petitioner. He submitted an application against this decision on 7-6-1999 which has been rejected after due consideration and communicated to him vide order impugned in the amendment application as Annexure-23. 3. According to the petitioner, the Respondents did not pay anything against the post-retiral dues for more than four years which caused untold distress to him and his family members. Further they have illegally deducted Rs. 49,844.50 from the sanctioned amount of unutilised earned leave as against the advance payment on contingent bills which had been duly passed by the competent authority and the only technical lapses was the non-entry of those bills in the cash books. According to him, as a matter of fact, all the vouchers of Rs. 4,41,407.25 were also to be entered in the cash book which the department ultimately did. It is contended that there was no reason for not doing the same with regard to the contingent advance vouchers for Rs. 49,884.50. As a matter of fact, the Department had already accepted all the contingent advance vouchers amounting to Rs. 1,64,445 as will be evident from comparative reading of Annexure-4 and Annexure-19 of the main writ application. Moreover, the impugned Annexure-23 does not contain any reason for deduction of Rs. 49,884.50 or for rejecting contingent vouchers for the same. 4. From the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the Respondents, it appears that the matter with regard to release of the pensionary dues of the petitioner remained pending on account of charge against the petitioner for the above-mentioned financial theft and mismanagment and ultimately the Finance Department forwarded the application for withdrawal of G.P.F. vide letter No. 8074 dated 11-12-1999 (Annexure-A) and soon-thereafter the calculation of G.P.F. was done with admissible up-to-date statutory interest and an authority slip for the relevant amount of Rs. 4,41,317 was issued vide letter No. 275 dated 15-2-2000 (Annexure-B series). As regards other dues, it is contended that the said payment has been delayed because the petitioner did not submit the accounts to the Government on time. It is further contended that the amount of Rs. 4,41,317 was issued vide letter No. 275 dated 15-2-2000 (Annexure-B series). As regards other dues, it is contended that the said payment has been delayed because the petitioner did not submit the accounts to the Government on time. It is further contended that the amount of Rs. 49,844.50 was due against him which has bee.n recovered from the amount against unutilised earned leave. 5. Mr. Saran,learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that on comparative reading of Annexures-4 & 19, it would be evident that the Department had already accepted all the contingent advance vouchers including for Rs. 49,844.50, yet the same has been deducted without any valid justification by the impugned order. It is submitted that the Respondents lodged F.I.R. for financial theft and mismanagement of Rs. 4,41,497.25 against the petitioner which after verification of the vouchers submitted by him has come down to Rs. 49,844.50. According to the learned Counsel this amount refers to the advance payment on contingent bills which had been duly passed by the competent authority and only technical lapses was the non-entry of those bills in the cash book. 6. It appears that the petitioner had filed representation on 7-6-1999, contained in Annexure-21 before the Finance Commissioner, Bihar, Patna in which he specifically stated that it is not clear as to why Rs. 49,844.50 was deducted from his leave encashment and accordingly sought for reconsideration of his case and payment of the said amount to him. The said representation has been disposed of by one line order dated 4-11-1999, contained in Annexure-23 to the amendment application. No reason has been assigned either in the impugned order, contained in Annexure-1 or even in the aforementioned order disposing of the representation of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find any justification for deduction of Rs, 49,844.50 from the,sanctioned amount of leave encashment found payable to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the State has failed to show that any enquiry for recovery of the said amount has even been initiated either before the retirement of the petitioner or after the retirement in terms of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. It is not clear as to what happened in the criminal case instituted against the petitioner, but the fact is that initially F.I.R. was lodged for not handing over the charge of Rs. It is not clear as to what happened in the criminal case instituted against the petitioner, but the fact is that initially F.I.R. was lodged for not handing over the charge of Rs. 4,41,497.25 by the petitioner to his successor, and later on enquiry and adjustment, has been reduced to only Rs. 49,844.50. The above alleged financial theft and mismanagement admittedly relate to the period while the petitioner was posted as Section Officer-cum-Cashier from 17-8-1989 to 28-2-1994 that is much beyond four years of rider provided for initiating action even under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. As such, in my opinion, there is no justification for passing the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 deduction Rs. 49,844.50 from the sanctioned amount of leave encashment found payable to the petitioner. 7. In the result, the writ application is allowed and the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 is quashed. The Respondents are directed to issue necessary sanction order for payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 49,844.50 to the petitioner within two weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this order, failing which the concerned authority shall not draw his salary and other allowances till the orders is complied and shall also be liable to pay cost of Rs. 1,000 from his pocket to the petitioner.