JUDGMENT : Suman Shyam, J. Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. G. Bordoloi, learned Standing Counsel, Agriculture Department, Assam, representing the respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, appears for the respondent No.4. 2. The writ petitioner herein was an employee of the Assam Seeds Corporation Limited, which is a public sector undertaking owned by the Government of Assam and she had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 28.02.2011. The claim of the petitioner is that as per the service rules she was entitled to gratuity, leave salary, arrear pay and dearness allowances as retirement dues amounting to Rs. 22,90,841/- in total. However, even after several years from the date of her retirement the respondents have not released the aforesaid amount on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary proceeding initiated on the basis of a show cause notice dated 08.06.2010. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, submits that there were two show cause notices issued to the writ petitioner around more or less the same time. The disciplinary proceeding initiated by the show cause notice dated 06.10.2009 had been subsequently dropped by the order dated 27.01.2014. However, in respect of the show cause notice dated 08.06.2010, although the petitioner had submitted her reply on 02.07.2010, the said proceeding has remained inconclusive till today in as much as no further steps have been taken by the department to take the enquiry forward. Notwithstanding the same, submits Mr. Das, by taking the plea of pendency of the disciplinary proceeding the retiral benefits of the writ petitioner has been arbitrarily withheld thereby causing serious prejudice to the rights and interest of his client. 4. By referring to a reported decision of this Court in the case of Bhagawan Chandra Sarma vs. State of Assam and Others, (2017) 3 GauLR 797 , Mr. Das submits that this Court has categorically held in that case that long delay in concluding disciplinary proceeding without any just explanation thereby resulting into stoppage of pension is impermissible in the eye of law and could be a ground to quash the disciplinary proceeding. According to Mr. Das, his case is squarely covered by the law laid down in the case of Bhagawan Chandra Sarma. According to Mr. Das, his case is squarely covered by the law laid down in the case of Bhagawan Chandra Sarma. As such, the learned counsel has prayed for setting aside the show cause notice dated 08.06.2010 and to issue a direction upon the respondents to release the retiral dues of the petitioner without any further delay. 5. Mr. Bordoloi, learned counsel appearing for the department, has referred to the counter affidavit filed by the Managing Director of Seed Corporation Limited to contend that the only reason why the petitioner's dues have been withheld is on account of pendency of the disciplinary proceeding and therefore, he submits that the department be directed to conclude the proceeding expeditiously. 6. Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance department, submits that the petitioner was an employee of the Corporation and therefore, the department of finance would not have any stand in the matter. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials brought on record. 8. As noted above, the respondents had initiated the disciplinary proceeding against the writ petitioner based on a show cause notice dated 08.06.2010 but it is the admitted position of fact that after receipt of the reply filed by the petitioner on 02.07.2010, no further action has been taken in the matter. The affidavit does not disclose any reason whatsoever, as to why the disciplinary proceeding was not taken forward by the department. Notwithstanding the same, it is the admitted case of the respondents that the petitioner's retiral dues had been withheld solely due to the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding. 9. By taking note of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, this Court has held in the case of Bhagawan Chandra Sarma that right to receive pension is equivalent to right to property and the same should not be denied to a Government servant except by following the due process of law. That was also a case where taking advantage of the pendency of a disciplinary proceeding for over 11 (eleven) years without there being any explanation as to the reason for such delay, the respondents had withheld the pension and other retirement benefits due to the petitioner. That was also a case where taking advantage of the pendency of a disciplinary proceeding for over 11 (eleven) years without there being any explanation as to the reason for such delay, the respondents had withheld the pension and other retirement benefits due to the petitioner. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court had set aside the disciplinary proceeding and directed the respondents to pay the pensionary dues to the petitioner. 10. In the present case also there is no explanation as to why the disciplinary proceeding initiated on the basis of show cause notice dated 08.06.2010 has not been concluded till today. Since the petitioner's retirement dues had been withheld due to pendency of the departmental proceeding, it is evident that the non-conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding has resulted into serious prejudice to her rights and interest warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, a perusal of the show cause notice dated 08.06.2010 also goes to show that there is no allegation of misappropriation of public fund by the petitioner. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that further delay in disbursal of the retirement dues of the petitioner on the ground of pendency of the disciplinary proceeding would lead to miscarriage of justice. 11. Consequently, the show cause notice dated 08.06.2010 and the departmental proceeding initiated on the basis of the same stands set aside. The respondents would now initiate necessary steps for release of the retiral dues in favour of the petitioner. The aforesaid exercise be carried out and completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition stands allowed. No order as to cost.