JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. 1. Petitioner feels aggrieved against respondents’withholding his Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity (DCRG) and Leave Encashment. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. Following facts come out from the jointsubmissions of the learned counsel for the patties:- (i) Petitioner was serving as Inspector in the respondent-Police Department. After rendering about 26 years and 8 months of regular service, he represented on 01.03.2023, seeking premature retirement. It appears that at that time, respondents were looking into some allegations statedly levelled against the petitioner. Petitioner’s prayer for premature retirement was rejected by them on 26.05.2023. (ii) Feeling aggrieved, petitioner instituted CWP No. 4183 of 2023. The writ petition was disposed of on 18.03.2024. Order dated 26.05.2023, impugned therein, was set aside with further direction to the competent authority to have fresh decision on petitioner’s application for premature retirement in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Range, Mandi, considered the application of the petitioner for premature/voluntary retirement from the Government service and allowed the same on 12.04.2024. As per this office order, petitioner was “allowed to proceed on pre-mature (voluntary) retirement from the Government services w.e.f. 31.05.2023 A.N. Further the outstanding due, if any, against him shall be recovered from the amount payable to him.” (iii) Petitioner, though was permitted by the competent authority to retire prematurely under office order dated 12.04.2024 subject to recovery of outstanding dues against him, however, subsequently, the respondents withheld the DCRG amounting to Rs.10,89,018/- payable to the petitioner. Leave encashment admissible to the petitioner was also not released. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has instituted this writ petition. 4. Learned Assistant Advocate General, on the strength of reply filed by the respondents, submits that the petitioner had wrongly drawn House Rent Allowance amounting to Rs.27600/- in all for the period w.e.f. November 2018 to June 2021. Leave encashment admissible to the petitioner was also not released. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has instituted this writ petition. 4. Learned Assistant Advocate General, on the strength of reply filed by the respondents, submits that the petitioner had wrongly drawn House Rent Allowance amounting to Rs.27600/- in all for the period w.e.f. November 2018 to June 2021. Petitioner was not entitled to the House Rent Allowance and for this reason, FIR No.217 of 2023 had been registered against the petitioner and ASI Manju under Sections 420, 468 and 120B of Indian Panel Code at Police Station Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P.Admittedly, the respondents have recovered the entire amount of House Rent Allowance alleged to have been wrongly drawn by the petitioner, yet because of pendency of criminal case against the petitioner, DCRG and leave encashment due him have not been released in his favour in view of Rule 69 of the Central Civil Services (Pension)Rules, 1972.Rule 69(1)(c) of the Central Civil Services (Pension)Rules, 1972 states that no gratuity shall be paid to the government servant until the conclusion of the departmental and judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereupon.This Rule reads as under:- “69(1)(a) In respect of a Government servant referred to in sub-rule (4) of Rule 9, the Accounts Officer shall authorize the provisional pension equal to the maximum pension which would have been admissible on the basis of qualifying service up to the date of retirement of the Government servant, or if he was under suspension on the date of retirement up to the date immediately preceding the date on which he was placed under suspension. (b) The provisional pension shall be authorized by the Accounts Officer during the period commencing from the date of retirement up to and including the date on which, after the conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings, final orders are passed by the competent authority. (c) No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon. Provided that where departmental proceedings have been instituted under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, for imposing any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Rule 11 of the said rules, the payment of gratuity shall be authorized to be paid to the Government servant.” Union of India and others Vs. K.V.Jankiraman and others, (1991) 4 SCC 109 holds that only when charge memo in disciplinary proceedings or a charge-sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to an employee, it can be said that department proceedings or criminal prosecution is initiated against him. Relevant paras from the judgment read as under:- “16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a chargesheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by thelearned counsel for the appellant-authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge- memo/charge-sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment etc. does not impress us. The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many-cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initiated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge-memo/chargesheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordinarily it should not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus are not without a ,remedy. It was then contended on behalf of the authorities that conclusions nos. 1 and 4 of the Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each other. The authorities thus are not without a ,remedy. It was then contended on behalf of the authorities that conclusions nos. 1 and 4 of the Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each other. Those conclusions are as follows: “(1) consideration for promotion, selection grade, crossing the efficiency bar or higher scale of pay cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary or criminal proceedings against an official; (2 ) ................................................ (3) ………………………………. (4) the sealed cover procedure can be resorted only after a charge memo is served on the concerned official or the charge sheet filed before the criminal court and not before.” 17. There' is no doubt that there is a seeming contradiction between the two conclusions. But read harmoniously, and that is what the Full Bench has intended, the two conclusions can be reconciled with each other. The conclusion no. 1 should be read to mean that the promotion etc. cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee. To deny the said benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge- memo/charge-sheet has already been issued to the employee. Thus read, there is no inconsistency in the two conclusions.’ 5. Indisputably, in the instant case, departmental proceedings have not been initiated against the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that charges have not been framed against the petitioner in the FIR registered against him. Mere pendency of an FIR against the petitioner will not take away his right to receive retiral benefits due to him for the service rendered by him. That being the position, it cannot be fathomed as to why the respondents did not release due and admissible gratuity and leave encashment to the petitioner, more so, when amount of Rs.27,600/- allegedly wrongly drawn by the petitioner as House Rent Allowance has already been recovered by the respondents from him. 6. In view of above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release gratuity and leave encashment due to the petitioner within four weeks from today. Failing which, the amount shall be payable @ 5%interest per annum. 7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.