ORDER : Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for a direction upon the Respondents to pay him his entire retrial dues including Regular Pension, Gratuity and commutation of pension to the extent of 40 per cent and the payable amount and also to pay interest on the delayed payment of pension. 3. The petitioner had retired from the post of Accounts Assistant in the services of the Electrical Supply Division, Daltonganj which is an unit of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi on 31.07.2005. Upon the payment of the retrial dues being not made promptly, the petitioner filed a writ application before this Court vide W.P. (S) No. 6067 of 2005. The writ application was disposed of by this Court by order dated-01.12.2005, with a direction to the Respondents to ensure payments of the petitioner's retrial benefits along with its calculations and to assign reasons for not paying the other amounts within the period stipulated in the order. The petitioner was given liberty to file representation before the concerned authorities of the Respondents. The petitioner filed his representation, upon which his pension was fixed provisionally to the extent of 90 per cent of the total pension. However, when even the provisionally fixed pension was not paid to him, the petitioner filed a contempt case vide Contempt Case (C) No. 120 of 2006. Upon the contempt application being filed, the Respondents authorities released 90 per cent of the petitioner's pension. The Respondents withheld ten per cent pension and gratuity of the petitioner and neither did they allow the commutation of pension nor paid any statutory interest on the delayed payment of the G.P.F. and the G.S.S. The reason for withholding the pension and the Gratuity, as stated by the Respondents, was that a vigilance case vide Vigilance Case No. 39 of 1997 is pending against the petitioner. On such plea taken by the Respondents, the Contempt proceedings was dropped with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of withholding the pension and Gratuity before the appropriate Court. On such plea taken by the Respondents, the Contempt proceedings was dropped with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of withholding the pension and Gratuity before the appropriate Court. The decision to withhold the full pension and the Gratuity was communicated to the petitioner by the concerned department of the State Government vide letter dated-25.10.2007 (Annexure-4), stating therein, that sanction for the petitioner's prosecution was issued by the appropriate authority of the State Government on 13.12.2003 in connection with the Vigilance Case No. 39 of 1997 and therefore, the payments were withheld. 4. Assailing the impugned decision of the Respondents, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that though the vigilance case was instituted in the year 1997 and is presently pending before the Special Judge, Ranchi but the petitioner was not named in the F.I.R. His name was subsequently included in the year 2000 by the Police due to mala fide reasons. The plea of pendency of the Vigilance case was not applied in the cases of those officials of the Board, who have been named as accused in the F.I.R. and their retrial benefits, including full pension and Gratuity, was released and paid to them. Learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to the names of the accused persons against whom the Vigilance case was initiated and who received the full pension and Gratuity upon their retirement. Learned Counsel argues further that the petitioner's services being a pensionable service, the same is guided by a Notification issued by the Respondents-Board on 02.12.1987 under the Bihar Pension Rules, whereby the procedure for sanction of pension was liberalized and simplified in respect of the Government servants and the same simplified procedure would also apply to the employees of the Respondent-Board. Learned Counsel argues further, that the petitioner had retired on 31.07.2005 and on that date, no departmental proceeding was pending against him. Furthermore, as laid down in the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Dudhnath Pandey v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2007 (4) J.C.R. 1 (Jhr.). Learned Counsel argues further, that the petitioner had retired on 31.07.2005 and on that date, no departmental proceeding was pending against him. Furthermore, as laid down in the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Dudhnath Pandey v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2007 (4) J.C.R. 1 (Jhr.). The purported Circular, issued by the Finance Department referred to in the impugned letter (Annexure-4) of the Respondents, the provisions of Rule 43 B of the Bihar Pension Rules do not empower the State Government to withhold the pension of the Government employees during the pendency of the departmental proceedings or criminal proceedings and neither does it give any power to withhold the leave encashment of an employee either prior to the proceedings or after conclusion of the proceedings. 5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents on the other hand, would reiterate that in view of the Circular issued by the State Finance Department (Annexure-4), since a Vigilance proceedings was pending against the petitioner, the full balance of the pension amount and the Gratuity amount had to be withheld against the petitioner. 6. From the rival submissions, the following facts emerge: (i) The petitioner had retired from the post of Accounts Assistant on 31.07.2005. (ii) Admittedly, no departmental proceedings was either initiated or pending against the petitioner on the date of his retirement. (iii) Admittedly, no proceeding under Rule 43 B of the State Pension Rules was initiated against the petitioner. 7. In the case of Dr. Dudhnath Pandey (Supra), the Full Bench of this Court while discussing the scope and ambit of Rule 43 B of the Pension Rules had declared that the Government had no power to withhold the Pension and Gratuity of the retired Government employee merely on the ground of pendency of the departmental or judicial proceedings. Though Rule 43 B of the State Pension Rules would empower the State Government to withhold the whole or part of the pension payment of the retired Government employees, but only if such employee is found in the departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct. In the present case, there is no such finding as yet, against the petitioner. In the present case, there is no such finding as yet, against the petitioner. Furthermore, if notwithstanding the pendency of the judicial proceedings, the officials of the Respondent-Board who have been named in the F.I.R., have already been paid the full pension and the Gratuity, the same standard ought to have been applied to the claim of the petitioner. 8. In the light of the facts and circumstances of this case and the discussions made above, I find merit in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. The Circular issued by the State Finance Department on the basis of which the Respondents have proceeded to withhold the balance of pension and gratuity of the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of the Rule 43 B of the State Pension Rules and it cannot be applied to debar the petitioner of his claim for payment of balance pension amount. 9. Considering the above facts, the Respondents are directed to release the balance of pension and pay the amount of Gratuity to the petitioner along with statutory interest for the delayed payments, within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Petition allowed.