Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who was allowed to voluntarily retire as District Officer, Land Development Bank, Chapra on 8-2-2000, is aggrieved on account of non-release of his pensionary dues. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Bank in which it is alleged that while the petitioner was posted as District Magistrate at Chapra, a huge amount of Rs. 48,28,845.60 was defalcated and for this an FIR has been lodged vide Dighwara P.S. Case No. 125 of 1989 in which the petitioner and others have been made accused. It is also stated that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, but during the pendency of the criminal case, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 1-5-1989 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4315 of 1989 (Annexure-B) stayed further proceeding of the said departmental proceeding till the disposal of the criminal prosecution. 3. A reply affidavit to the said counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner in which it is stated that the charge-sheet has been submitted not only against the petitioner but also against six others and the petitioner is formal co-accused. Accordingly to the petitioner, it is true that the cognizance has been taken but the allegation against him has not been proved as yet. It is further stated that the petitioner has been allowed voluntary retirement vide order dated 8-2-2000 (Annexure-1) from which it is quite clear that the said order has been passed under Rule 74 of the Bihar Service Code read with Bank Rule 235. According to Rule 74, voluntary retirement can only be allowed if no such allegation is pending on the basis of which no major punishment can be awarded a the voluntary retirement has been allowed during the pendency of the criminal case. It will be deemed that the Bank is not treating the criminal case as "a case" on the basis of which the voluntary retirement can be denied and the post retirement benefit can be withheld and any amount can be recovered from the post, retirement benefit. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner thus has submitted that withholding of retiral dues without any authority is illegal and arbitrary. 5. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner thus has submitted that withholding of retiral dues without any authority is illegal and arbitrary. 5. Earlier this matter was passed over to enable the learned Counsel for the respondent Bank to produce any rule/regulation/resolution of the Board empowering the authority of the Bank to withhold payment of retirement dues on account of pendency of criminal case or departmental proceeding. 6. Mr. Yugal Kishore, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank has not been able to show any such rule. He has ventured to rely upon catena of decisions of this Court in the case of State of Bihar V/s. Narsimha Sundram, 1994 (1) PLJR (SC) 101, in the case of Ram Bahadur Sinha V/s. State of Bihar, 1994 (2) PLJR 724, in the case of Birendra Kumar Verma V/s. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors., 1996 (2) PLJR 702, and in the case of Lakshmi Shankar Prasad V/s. State, in 1999 (3) PLJR 654, in support of the stand of the Bank for withholding payment of the retirement benefits during the pendency of the aforementioned proceeding. 7. I am unable to appreciate as to how the said decisions are of any help to the respondent Bank. In the said decision, the Courts were dealing with the cases which are covered by Rule 43 (b) or Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules or the Government Circular relating to it. 8. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was a, Government servant or that the rules and instructions issued by the State Government have been applied to the case of the employees of the Bank mutatis mutandis. Under such circumstances, I find it difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Yugal Kishore, learned Counsel for the Bank that the payment of retirement dues of the employees of the Bank can be withheld on account of mere pendency of the criminal case or departmental proceeding. On the contrary, Rule 235 of Service Rules relating to the respondent Bank provides that an employee who, retired voluntarily or required to be retired compulsorily in Banks interest on reaching the age of 50 years completing 30 years of service shall be entitled to contributory provident fund and gratuity as admissible, 9. On the contrary, Rule 235 of Service Rules relating to the respondent Bank provides that an employee who, retired voluntarily or required to be retired compulsorily in Banks interest on reaching the age of 50 years completing 30 years of service shall be entitled to contributory provident fund and gratuity as admissible, 9. In any view of the matter, learned Counsel for the Bank has not been able to show that the authority is empowered under any provision to withhold the payment during the pendency of the criminal case or departmental proceeding against an employees. In my opinion, withholding of the retiral dues by the respondent-Bank is, thus, arbitrary and bad. 10. Learned Counsel for the Bank has fairly produced three cheques; one for Rs. 1,36,893.00 for payment of the amount of gratuity and leave encashment, second one for Rs. 30,739.00 for payment of the group insurance and the third cheque for Rs. 3,06,461.00 for payment of the amount of C.P.F. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that in the absence of details, the petitioner may be given liberty to move the authority concerned for payment of the remaining amount, if any, in case the petitioner finds any discrepancy. 12. Accordingly, the cheques produced today have been handed over to the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to move the authority concerned for any remaining dues or if there is any discrepancy in the quantum relating to aforementioned dues.