Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 39 (MAN)

State of Manipur v. Ranjana Manohermayum (Miss)

2022-03-29

M.V.MURALIDARAN, SANJAY KUMAR

body2022
JUDGMENT Sanjay Kumar, CJ. - The point for consideration in this case is whether gratuity and pension payable to a retired employee can be withheld without even initiating disciplinary or judicial proceedings against such employee as per due procedure. 2. A learned Judge of this Court did not think so and allowed W.P(C) No.1013 of 2018 by order dated 30.04.2019, directing finalization and payment of gratuity and pensionary benefits to the petitioner therein, presently respondent No.1, within a time frame. Aggrieved thereby, the State of Manipur and its authorities in the Social Welfare and Vigilance Departments preferred this appeal. 3. Heard Mr. Mangsatabam Rarry, learned Additional Advocate General, Manipur, for the appellants; Mr. H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel, appearing for respondent No.1; and Mr. S.Suresh, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Child Development Project Officer in the Social Welfare Department of the State on 02.02.1991. She was promoted to the post of Programme Officer (ICDS) on 03.01.2000. She was transferred to the State Cell on 24.01.2005. By order dated 27.12.2005, the Programme Officer, State ICDS Cell, was declared to be the Drawing and Disbursing Officer and also Head of Office in respect of the Directorate of Social Welfare, Manipur. In consequence, respondent No.1 became the Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) from that date. 5. In March, 2014, a report was published in a local newspaper about Rs.1.21 Crore meant for old age pensions being parked in the DDO's account for the previous two years. In that context, the Director (Social Welfare), Manipur, addressed letter dated 26.03.2014 to the Principal Secretary (Social Welfare), Government of Manipur, confirming that Rs.1.21 Crore had been sanctioned towards old age pensions and was deposited in the DDO's account but the same was not available in the account as on date but no documents were available evidencing release of the amount to the beneficiaries. The Joint Secretary (Social Welfare), Government of Manipur, replied vide letter dated 01.04.2014, asking the Director (Social Welfare), Manipur, to refer the matter to the Vigilance Department for inquiry. The Director (Social Welfare), Manipur, accordingly wrote to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department, Manipur, on 04.04.2014, asking him to take necessary further action. Thereupon, the Vigilance Department registered Vigilance Case No.1/SP-V/2014 in relation to the missing Rs.1.21 Crore and Vigilance Case No.1/SP-V/2015 apropos another sum of money which was not properly accounted for. The Director (Social Welfare), Manipur, accordingly wrote to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department, Manipur, on 04.04.2014, asking him to take necessary further action. Thereupon, the Vigilance Department registered Vigilance Case No.1/SP-V/2014 in relation to the missing Rs.1.21 Crore and Vigilance Case No.1/SP-V/2015 apropos another sum of money which was not properly accounted for. Respondent No.1, being the DDO, was therefore involved in these vigilance inquiry cases. 6. While so, respondent No.1 attained the age of superannuation. Order dated 25.6.2016 was issued by the Deputy Secretary (Social Welfare), Government of Manipur, allowing her to retire from service with effect from 31.03.2016. However, the order made it clear that payment of her gratuity would be subject to completion of Vigilance Cases No.1/SP-V/2014 and No.1/SP-V/2015 pending against her. However, the Director (Vigilance), Manipur, addressed Integrity Certificate/Vigilance Clearance dated 10.10.2016 to the Director (Social Welfare), Manipur, informing him that no vigilance case was pending against respondent No.1. The Director (Social Welfare), Manipur, addressed letter dated 25.07.2017 to the Director (Vigilance), Manipur, referring to the Integrity Certificate/Vigilance Clearance dated 10.10.2016, and requested him to issue closure details of both vigilance cases so as to enable the department to process her retirement benefits. In response, the Director (Vigilance), Manipur, addressed letter dated 26.09.2017 informing the Director (Social Welfare), Manipur, that the State Vigilance Commission had recommended to the Social Welfare Department to institute a special audit to look into the step-by-step outflow of the Rs.1.21 Crore meant for old age pensions during the financial year 2011-12, connected with Vigilance Case No.1/SP-V/2014, and institution of a special audit to find out the utilization of Rs.11.38 Lakh meant for setting up the State Resource Centre for Women, connected with Vigilance Case No.1/SP-V/2015. He reiterated that the Vigilance Clearance Certificate had been issued on 10.10.2016 as no charge could be framed against respondent No.1 in these vigilance cases and confirmed that no case was pending against her. He further stated that the Administrative Department would be in a position to fix responsibility against any official/officials of the Social Welfare Department on the basis of the audit reports, as recommended by the Commission. 7. Thereupon, the Director (Social Welfare), Manipur, addressed letter dated 27.08.2018 to the Secretary, Finance (PIC), Government of Manipur, and the Director, (Vigilance), Manipur, seeking clarification as to status of the High Powered Committee in relation to Vigilance Case No.1/SP-V/2014. 7. Thereupon, the Director (Social Welfare), Manipur, addressed letter dated 27.08.2018 to the Secretary, Finance (PIC), Government of Manipur, and the Director, (Vigilance), Manipur, seeking clarification as to status of the High Powered Committee in relation to Vigilance Case No.1/SP-V/2014. The matter was thereupon referred to the High Powered Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, Government of Manipur. The Committee met on 05.11.2018 and the Minutes of the said meeting recorded that in the earlier meeting held on 01.06.2016, the Committee had decided that the Finance Department should call for a report from the Vigilance Department as to why the inquiry report was silent on the case of misappropriation of the old age pensions. The Committee was informed of the recommendation of the Vigilance Commission that a special audit be instituted to look into the matter but finally decided that the Vigilance Department should inquire afresh into the non-disbursement of old age pensions during the year 2011-12 and submit a report within one month. In consequence, the Vigilance Department registered a fresh case on 24.12.2018, bearing No.35/PE/SP-V & AC/2018. 8. Though the High Powered Committee required the Vigilance Commission to submit its report within one month, only a preliminary report was submitted by it under letter dated 16.07.2019. Therein, it stated that a sum of Rs.1,21,46,600.00 had been sanctioned towards old age pensions during the year 2011-12 and the said amount was drawn from the DDO's account but not disbursed to the beneficiaries. The Vigilance Department recorded that, prima facie, offences of cheating, criminal misconduct/ misappropriation and criminal conspiracy were established against the then Director, Social Welfare Department; the then Deputy Director (ICDS/DDO), Social Welfare Department, viz., respondent No.1; and the then Superintendent-cum-Cashier, Social Welfare Department; and other unknown public servants and private persons. This preliminary report was considered by the High Powered Committee in the meeting held on 06.08.2019 and it was decided that an appropriate FIR may be lodged. Thereupon, FIR No.6(11) 2019-V & AC PS was registered by the Vigilance Department under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC along with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the file of the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Police Station, Lamphel Sub-Division, Imphal West District. Thereupon, FIR No.6(11) 2019-V & AC PS was registered by the Vigilance Department under Section 120-B read with Section 420 IPC along with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on the file of the Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Police Station, Lamphel Sub-Division, Imphal West District. The accused named therein were G. Satyabati Devi, the then Director, Social Welfare Department, Manipur; Ranjana Manohermayum, the then Deputy Director (ICDS/DDO), Social Welfare Department, Manipur, respondent No.1 herein; and P.Mohendro Singh, the then Superintendent-cum-Cashier, Social Welfare Department, Manipur; and other unknown public servants and private persons. 9. This fact was brought to the notice of the High Powered Committee at its meeting held on 18.12.2019. By that time, the judgment under appeal had been passed and the Committee was apprised of the fact that an appeal had been filed and was pending consideration on the condone delay application filed therein. The Committee thereupon decided that provisional pension should be paid to G.Satyabati Devi and Ranjana Manohermayum and that the Vigilance Department should proceed with the case as per Rules. Pursuant thereto, letter dated 04.01.2020 was addressed by the Deputy Secretary, (Social Welfare), Government of Manipur, requesting that necessary action be taken for sanctioning provisional pension to the two officers at the earliest. This letter was sent to the Director (Social Welfare), Manipur, and the Accountant General, Manipur. It appears that long prior to this date, respondent No.1 had addressed letter dated 23.06.2018 to the Director (Social Welfare), Manipur, stating that she had come to know that the process of approving provisional pension for her was ongoing and requested that full pension along with full retirement benefits, including gratuity, be released to her. 10. It is, however, an admitted fact that respondent No.1 is not being paid provisional pension as on date. She was only allowed to encash her earned leave, vide order dated 22.06.2017, and no other retirement benefits, viz., pension and gratuity, were released till date. Mr. M. Rarry, learned Additional Advocate General, Manipur, would inform this Court that investigation in relation to the FIR case is still ongoing as it was delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, as on date, no charge-sheet/final report has been filed in relation to the subject FIR. Further, neither disciplinary proceedings were initiated against respondent No.1 nor was she suspended from service on this issue. 11. Therefore, as on date, no charge-sheet/final report has been filed in relation to the subject FIR. Further, neither disciplinary proceedings were initiated against respondent No.1 nor was she suspended from service on this issue. 11. The matter under investigation is, no doubt, a serious one. It relates to the alleged misappropriation of Rs.1,21,46,600.00, comprising old age pensions @ Rs.200 per month for 15733 pensioners for four months (November, 2011 to February, 2012), totaling Rs.1.20 Crore, and old age pensions @ Rs.100 per month for 733 pensioners for two months (September and October, 2011), totaling Rs.1,46,600.00. However, the short question that falls for consideration presently is whether the Government of Manipur is legally justified in withholding the pension and gratuity payable to respondent No.1 pending the investigation into the subject FIR case. In so far as the gratuity is concerned, Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, speaks of forfeiture, wholly or in part, of the gratuity of an employee, where there is termination of his/her services on any of the grounds specified therein. In the case on hand, respondent No.1 was permitted to retire from service under order dated 25.06.2016. Though the said order stated to the effect that payment of her gratuity would be subject to the outcome of the two vigilance cases mentioned therein, the fact remains that no disciplinary proceedings were pending against her as on that date, whereby her retrospective termination from service could have been possibly effected. In consequence, the question of respondent No.1 being terminated from service at this stage does not arise. 12. Mr. M.Rarry, learned Additional Advocate General, Manipur, would rely upon the provisions of the Manipur Public Servants Personal Liability Act, 2006 (for brevity, 'the Act of 2006'), and the Manipur Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1977 (for brevity, 'the Rules of 1977'), in support of his contention that the action of the Government in withholding the gratuity and pension of respondent No.1 is lawful. 13. The Act of 2006 was promulgated to provide accountability and personal liability for irregular actions of public servants in Manipur. Section 4 thereof speaks of liability for irregular action by a public servant and provides that any public servant who indulged in such irregular action would be entirely and personally liable for payment and liquidation of the financial liability arising out of his action. Section 4 thereof speaks of liability for irregular action by a public servant and provides that any public servant who indulged in such irregular action would be entirely and personally liable for payment and liquidation of the financial liability arising out of his action. Section 5 provides the measures for recovery of unauthorized liability and states that such monies shall be recovered from the salaries and entitlements payable or incomes of such public servants. However, the statutory scheme requires the High Powered Committee, constituted under Section 7 thereof, to decide on the irregular action of the public servant and fix the financial liability in respect thereof after following the prescribed procedure. Admittedly, no such decision or determination has materialized as yet against respondent No.1. Further, Rule 4 of the Manipur Public Servants Personal Liability Rules, 2006, framed under Section 11 of the Act of 2006, elaborates that the unauthorized liability resulting from the irregular action of the public servant shall be recovered from the salary, entitlements and incomes of the public servant and 'income' would include the value of private properties and assets of the public servant and his family members. Rule 6 states that recovery of the unauthorized financial liability arising from irregular actions shall be made from the salary and entitlements payable to the public servant or from his/her incomes at any time before or after superannuation. Rules 6(2) provides that, where the financial liability cannot be fully recovered from the salary and entitlements payable to the public servant, the State Government shall take suitable measures to recover the liabilities from other incomes of the public servant, either through institution of a suit in a Court of law or any other means available as per law. 14. In so far as the Rules of 1977 are concerned, Rule 3 thereof stipulates to the effect that the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for brevity, 'the Rules of 1972'), as amended from time to time, are adapted with modification of nomenclatures. The Manipur Civil Services (Pension) (Amendment) Rules, 2011, however, added a rider that the adaptation of the Rules of 1972, as amended upto 31.03.2010, would be subject to the Office Memoranda/Notifications issued by the State Government and the provisions of the Rules of 1972 which were not in consonance therewith would not be applicable to State Government employees/pensioners. The Manipur Civil Services (Pension) (Amendment) Rules, 2011, however, added a rider that the adaptation of the Rules of 1972, as amended upto 31.03.2010, would be subject to the Office Memoranda/Notifications issued by the State Government and the provisions of the Rules of 1972 which were not in consonance therewith would not be applicable to State Government employees/pensioners. However, no Office Memoranda/Notifications of the Government of Manipur have been produced or relied upon presently so as to override the Rules of 1972. In effect, the legal basis, if any, for the State Government's present action would have to be found in the Rules of 1972. 15. Mr. M.Rarry, learned Additional Advocate General, Manipur, would essentially rely on Rule 9 of the Rules of 1972, which deals with the right to withhold or withdraw pension. Relevant portions of Rule 9 are discussed hereunder. Rule 9(1), in the context of the State of Manipur, would read thus: '9(1). The Governor of Manipur reserves to himself the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement ......' Rule 9(2)(a) provides that the departmental proceedings referred to in Rule 9(1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service. Rule 9(2)(b) states that the departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, shall not be instituted, save with the sanction of the Governor of Manipur; shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Governor of Manipur may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service. Rule 9(4) states that a provisional pension shall be sanctioned to the Government servant against whom departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under Rule 9(2). Rule 9(6) is of relevance and it reads as follows: - 'Rule 9 (6) For the purpose of this rule,- (a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted -- (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a Police Officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made, and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the Court.' 16. In the case on hand, respondent No.1 was never placed under suspension from service in relation to the subject issue. Further, till now, no statement of charges has been issued to her in relation to any alleged misconduct or irregularity in carrying out her duties. In terms of Rule 9(6)(a), departmental proceedings cannot be deemed to have been instituted against her as on date. In so far as judicial proceedings are concerned, only a FIR has been registered against her and the investigation is still in progress. By no stretch of imagination can mere registration of a FIR be equated with cognizance taken by a Magistrate under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In so far as judicial proceedings are concerned, only a FIR has been registered against her and the investigation is still in progress. By no stretch of imagination can mere registration of a FIR be equated with cognizance taken by a Magistrate under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 190 Cr.P.C deals with cognizance of offences by Magistrates and states to the effect that a Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence either upon receiving a complaint on the facts which constitute such offence or upon a police report of such facts or upon information received from any person other than a police officer or by his own knowledge that such offence has been committed. The 'police report' referred to in this provision is the 'final report' that would be submitted after investigation by the police under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. In the present case, the investigation in the subject FIR case is still ongoing and no final report has been submitted to the Magistrate concerned as on date. In effect, judicial proceedings cannot be deemed to have been instituted against respondent No.1 at this time. 17. At this stage, it would be apposite to note curial wisdom on this issue. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma and another [ (1987) 2 SCC 179 , the Supreme Court observed that though pension is not a bounty but is a right earned by the Government servant on the basis of length of service, the grant of full pension would depend on approval of the service rendered by such employee. It was further observed that if the Government incurs pecuniary loss on account of misconduct or negligence of a Government servant and if he retires from service before departmental proceedings are taken against him, it would be open to the Government to initiate departmental proceedings and if he is found guilty of misconduct or negligence, as a result of which the Government is put to pecuniary loss, the Government would be entitled to withhold, reduce or recover the loss suffered by it by forfeiture or reduction of his pension. These observations were made in the context of Civil Service Regulations which had statutory character and provided for forfeiture and deduction in the pension of the Government servant who did not render satisfactory service or who was found guilty of misconduct or negligence resulting in pecuniary loss to the Government. 18. In U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and others v. Kamal Swaroop Tondon [ (2008) 2 SCC 41 , the Supreme Court observed that while resignation brought about complete cessation of the master and servant relationship, retirement did not do so as the master-servant relationship continued for grant of retiral benefits. That being so, the Supreme Court held that departmental proceedings were continued lawfully after the retirement of the employee as regards financial loss caused to the Corporation owing to the negligence on the part of the employee. It was further held that the loss caused to the Corporation could be recovered from the retiral benefits of the employee. 19. In State of Jharkhand and others v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava [ (2013) 12 SCC 210 , the Supreme Court reiterated that it is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not bounties and that an employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and unblemished service and that this right cannot be taken away without due process of law. Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules was under consideration in that case and it reads on the same lines as Rule 9(1) presently under consideration. Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules was under consideration in that case and it reads on the same lines as Rule 9(1) presently under consideration. Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules is 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 the Government if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct; or to have caused pecuniary loss to the Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement.' Considering the ambit and scope of this Rule, the Supreme Court observed that the Government would have power to withhold or withdraw pension when the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct either in departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings but held that the State was not empowered to invoke the said provision while departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings are still pending. It was affirmed that the said power could be invoked only when the proceedings concluded with a finding of guilt against the Government servant and not before. The Supreme Court further held that Rule 43(b) made it abundantly clear that, even after the conclusion of the departmental inquiry, it would be permissible for the Government to withhold pension only when a finding is recorded either in the departmental inquiry or judicial proceedings that the employee had committed grave misconduct in the discharge of his duty while in office but there was no provision in the rules for withholding pension/gratuity when such departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings are still pending. 20. Following this edict in Dr. Hira Lal v. State of Bihar and others [ (2020) 4 SCC 346 , the Supreme Court observed that in the absence of statutory rules permitting withholding of pension or gratuity, the State could not do so by way of executive instructions. Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules was again under consideration. 20. Following this edict in Dr. Hira Lal v. State of Bihar and others [ (2020) 4 SCC 346 , the Supreme Court observed that in the absence of statutory rules permitting withholding of pension or gratuity, the State could not do so by way of executive instructions. Rule 43 of the Bihar Pension Rules was again under consideration. The Supreme Court however noted that the position had changed after insertion of Rule 43(c) in the said Rules on 19.07.2012, which permitted withholding of 10% of the pension amount in the event the departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings did not conclude till the retirement of the Government servant. In that case, the appellant had been placed under suspension from service and continued to remain so till he attained the age of superannuation. At that stage, the Government sanctioned payment of 90% of the provisional pension to him and withheld 10% thereof along with the entire gratuity, leave encashment and GPF, due to pending criminal proceedings. 21. In Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited v. Rabindranath Choubey (2020) 18 SCC 71 , a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court considered the scope of Rule 34.2 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules of Mahanadi Coalfield Limited. The two questions that fell for consideration were: 1). Whether it was permissible in law for the employer to withhold payment of gratuity to the employee after his superannuation from service because of pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him; and 2). Whether the punishment of dismissal could be imposed upon him even if he was found guilty of misconduct in the departmental inquiry that had been instituted while he was in service and continued after he attained the age of superannuation. In that case, the employee was suspended from service pending the departmental inquiry instituted on the basis of a charge-sheet. The suspension was thereafter revoked without prejudice to the departmental inquiry and upon his attaining the age of superannuation, he was permitted to retire from service. His gratuity was however withheld owing to the pendency of the departmental inquiry. The majority opinion of two learned Judges was that Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, was in consonance with Rule 34.3 of the CDA Rules and therefore, the employer had a right to withhold the payment of gratuity during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. The majority opinion of two learned Judges was that Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, was in consonance with Rule 34.3 of the CDA Rules and therefore, the employer had a right to withhold the payment of gratuity during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. The learned third Judge also concurred with this view but dissented with the majority opinion that dismissal from service could be imposed even after retirement. 22. In the light of statutory scheme obtaining under the State's Pension Rules and the case law set out supra, it is clear that the authorities have no power to withhold gratuity and pension even during the pendency of disciplinary/judicial proceedings in the event the government servant is allowed to retire as there is no provision in the rules extant akin to Rule 43(c) of the Bihar Pension Rules or Rule 34.2 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. As per Rule 9, which is applicable presently, it is only after the conclusion of disciplinary/judicial proceedings and the rendering of a finding of guilt therein against a Government servant that the question of withholding his/her gratuity and pension would arise. As already noted supra, it cannot even be deemed at this stage that any departmental or judicial proceedings have been instituted against respondent No.1. However serious the allegation of misconduct may be, without the sanction of law and a legal foundation for such punitive action, it is not open to the authorities to withhold the lawful benefits due and payable to a retired employee on the ground that he or she may, thereafter, be found guilty of causing pecuniary loss to the Government. Bereft of such legal sanction, the action of the authorities in withholding pension and gratuity cannot be countenanced. 23. Further, as noted hereinbefore, it would be open to the State to recover the amount of loss determined as payable by a public servant after a finding of guilt, even after retirement, be it from the salary and entitlements payable to the public servant or from his/her other incomes, either through institution of a civil suit or by any other means available in law. Therefore, it is not as if the Government would be remediless if the proceedings culminate in such a finding notwithstanding the retirement of respondent No.1 and payment of her retirement benefits. 24. Therefore, it is not as if the Government would be remediless if the proceedings culminate in such a finding notwithstanding the retirement of respondent No.1 and payment of her retirement benefits. 24. On the above analysis, this Court finds that, as on date, no departmental or judicial proceedings even exist or can be deemed to exist against respondent No.1, whereby recourse, however shaky, can at least be attempted to some basis for withholding her pension and gratuity. In the absence of legal sanction, the action of the State authorities in resorting to withholding her pension and gratuity cannot be said to be lawful. The direction of the learned Judge to release such benefits therefore does not warrant interference. In the event judicial proceedings initiated against respondent No.1, if any, culminate in a sustainable finding of her guilt in relation to the missing Rs.1.21 Crore, it would be open to the authorities to take recourse to the remedies available to them in law for recovering such financial loss from respondent No.1. Subject to this observation, the writ appeal is dismissed. The appellants shall implement the order under appeal within one month from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order shall be supplied online or through WhatsApp to the learned counsel for the parties.