Judgment : R. Sudhakar, J. 1. This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the proceedings of the second respondent in No.Estt(R)2/10675/2013/F, dated 30.4.2013, to quash the same and to consequently direct respondents 1 and 2 to grant the petitioner full pension, DCRG, earned leave encashment, provident fund and all other admissible terminal benefits along with interest. 2. According to the petitioner, he belongs to Konda Reddi Community, which is a Schedule Tribe Community. The petitioner retired from the service of the Chennai Port Trust as a Office Superintendent on 30.4.2013, on attaining the age of superannuation. However, on the date of his retirement, namely on 30.4.2013, the impugned order was passed by the second respondent holding that the pension and other terminal benefits due to him are withheld on two grounds, namely (i) in view of the pendency of verification of the genuineness of the community certificate of the petitioner by the District Level Vigilance Committee; and (ii) the wife of the petitioner herein obtained an order of interim injunction from the Family Court, Chennai in O.S.No.198 of 2012. For better clarity, the impugned order passed by the second respondent is extracted hereunder: "MEMO Sub: Establishment – Shri S.Ramaswamy, Office Supdt. retiring from the Trust's service under superannuation on 30.4.2013 – Regarding He is informed that as has been directed by the Chairman, the terminal benefits towards Gratuity, Commuted Value of Pension and Provident Fund settlement on his retirement under superannuation on 30.4.2013 are withheld in view of the pendency of the verification of his community certificate by the District Vigilance Committee and the injunction granted by the Hon'ble Family Court, Chennai on 24.7.2012 in I.A.No.1920, O.S.No.198 of 2012 filed by his wife Smt.R.Kalyani and his daughter for withholding of terminal benefits. However the provisional pension along with relief as admissible will be paid to him subject to the condition that if the District Vigilance Committee finds the Community Certificate as a bogus one, the pension will be stopped and the Trust is free to take action as per law. A cheque bearing No.941490 dated 2.5.2013 for Rs.46,615/-towards PF assets is enclosed." 3. The present writ petition is restricted only with regard to the first ground for refusal of pension and terminal benefits, namely the verification of the genuineness of the community certificate is pending before the District Level Vigilance Committee. A cheque bearing No.941490 dated 2.5.2013 for Rs.46,615/-towards PF assets is enclosed." 3. The present writ petition is restricted only with regard to the first ground for refusal of pension and terminal benefits, namely the verification of the genuineness of the community certificate is pending before the District Level Vigilance Committee. Insofar as the second ground regarding the injunction granted by the Family Court, Chennai is concerned, the petitioner clearly states that he will work out his remedy in accordance with law and he is not canvassing that issue in the present writ petition. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition fortifies the above plea and, therefore, we confine ourselves to the issue relating to denial of pension and terminal benefits on the ground that verification of the genuineness of the community certificate is pending before the District Level Vigilance Committee. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the community certificate issued to him was cancelled in the year 1995 and the same was challenged in W.P.No.1984 of 1995, which was disposed of on 21.6.2012 with a direction to verify the genuineness of the community certificate as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madurai Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, (1994) 6 SCC 241 . The petitioner states that the District Level Committee, Madurai verified the same and concluded that the Community Certificate produced by the petitioner is a genuine one vide proceedings dated 6.2.2004. 5. It is stated that despite upholding of the validity of the Community Certificate by the District Level Committee, Madurai, the first respondent had addressed a letter to the Chairman, State Level Scrutiny Committee seeking thorough verification of the genuineness and the same was in turn remanded to the District Level Vigilance Committee for further enquiry and it is pending consideration. Therefore, as on date, the proceedings of the District Level Vigilance Committee, Madurai dated 6.2.2004 holding the community certificate of the petitioner as a genuine one holds good. 6.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the above pleadings, contended that the impugned order passed by the second respondent is bad, as such restraint cannot be imposed in view of Regulation 56 of the Madras Port Trust Pension Regulation, which reads as under: "56. Right to withhold or withdraw Pension. 6.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the above pleadings, contended that the impugned order passed by the second respondent is bad, as such restraint cannot be imposed in view of Regulation 56 of the Madras Port Trust Pension Regulation, which reads as under: "56. Right to withhold or withdraw Pension. The Chairman 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 the Board, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during his service, including service rendered on reemployment after retirement." 6.2. He further pleaded that there is no departmental or judicial proceedings pending and there is no order holding him guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during his service and therefore the impugned order is not valid in law. 6.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a recent decision of the Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand and others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another (Order dated 14.8.2013 in C.A.No.6771 of 2013), wherein Regulation 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, which is almost identical to Regulation 56 of the Madras Port Trust Pension Regulation, was considered and it was held that unless there are proceedings which conclude that a person is guilty, there is no power to withhold the payment of pension and other terminal benefits. It is apposite to refer to paragraphs (9) and (14) of the said decision, which read as under: "9. Having explained the legal position, let us first duscuss the rules relating to release of Pension. The present case is admittedly governed by – Bihar Pension Rules, as applicable to the State of Jharkhand. Rule 43(b) of the said Pension Rules confers power on the State Government to withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof under certain circumstances. Having explained the legal position, let us first duscuss the rules relating to release of Pension. The present case is admittedly governed by – Bihar Pension Rules, as applicable to the State of Jharkhand. Rule 43(b) of the said Pension Rules confers power on the State Government to withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof under certain circumstances. This Rule 43(b) reads as under: '43(b) The State Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for 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 the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty to grave misconduct, or to have cause pecuniary loss to Government misconduct, or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on reemployment after retirement.' .... 14. Article 300A of the Constitution of India reads as under: '300A Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law.- No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.' Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced." 7.1. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 contended that the validity of the community certificate issued to the petitioner is pending consideration by the District Vigilance Committee comprising three members and therefore, the decision of the earlier District Vigilance Committee comprising two members is without jurisdiction. 7.2. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, in support of impugned order passed by the second respondent, placed reliance on the following decisions of the Supreme Court: R.Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and others, (2004) 2 SCC 105 . Bank of India and another v. Avinash D.Mandivikar and others, (2005) 7 SCC 690 ; and Union of India v. Dattatray and others, (2008) 4 SCC 612 . Bank of India and another v. Avinash D.Mandivikar and others, (2005) 7 SCC 690 ; and Union of India v. Dattatray and others, (2008) 4 SCC 612 . 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 9. In the case on hand, admittedly, there is no departmental or judicial proceedings pending against the petitioner and there is no order holding him guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during his service. Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand and others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another, referred supra, is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 10. The genuineness of the community certificate of the petitioner had already undergone a test earlier and it was found in favour of the petitioner. Unless and until there is a clear finding that the community certificate produced by the petitioner is invalid, the regulations cannot be pressed into service. 11. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 are all cases where the community certificates have been cancelled and upheld in the judicial forum. The same will not apply to the facts of the present case, as admittedly the proceedings of the District Level Vigilance Committee, Madurai dated 6.2.2004 holding the community certificate of the petitioner as a genuine still holds good and has not been set aside by the competent authority. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no justification in withholding the payment of pension and other terminal benefits by respondents 1 and 2 on the ground that the verification of the community certificate is pending. The writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the second respondent insofar as it relates to restraint on grant of pension and other terminal benefits on account of enquiry pending before the District Vigilance Committee alone is set aside. However, if the pending proceedings go against the petitioner, it is open to respondents 1 and 2 to proceed in accordance with law. No costs.