Page No.# 1/17 GAHC010003352013 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/129/2013 DR. CHENIRAM DUTTA S/O LT. GOPAL DUTTA R/O VILL- CHARIGAO, P.O. BAHONA, DIST. JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785101. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION HIGHER DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019. 3:THE GOVERNING BODY OF BAHONA COLLEGE JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 785101 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R KALITA, MR S BORTHAKUR,MS. P BORAH,MS.S BARUA,MS.R DEVI,MRS.J M KONWAR,MS.P CHOUDHURY,MR.B D KONWAR,MR.R P SARMAH,MSG GHOSH Advocate for the Respondent : , ,,,,SC, EDU,,MR.P MAHANTA BEFORE Page No.# 2/17 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 20-11-2025 Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Upamanu, learned standing counsel, Higher Education, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 also heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, Governing Body (GB), Bahona College. 2. The petitioner in the present proceeding has presented a challenge to the order dated 30-11-2012 passed by the Director, Higher Education, Assam, imposing upon the petitioner the penalty of dismissal from service w.e.f. 22-05-2010, on conclusion of a departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner. 3. The facts, in brief, requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present writ petition is noticed as under:- The petitioner, herein, while working as the In-charge Principal of the Bahona College, basing on certain allegations of commission of misconduct, coming on record against him, the Governing Body (GB) of the College proceeded to arrive at a decision in its meeting held on 19-05-2010, to place the petitioner under suspension for alleged involvement in a financial scandal in connection with the utilization of funds of the College. The said decision was placed before the Director of Higher Education, Assam who is the appointing authority of the petitioner for approval. The Director vide order dated 20-05-2010 approved the said resolution dated 19-05-2010 of the GB and the suspension of the petitioner, herein, stood ratified. The order dated 20-05-2010 further proceed to appoint the next senior most faculty as the Principal In-Charge-cum-Secretary Page No.# 3/17 of the GB. Thereafter, the GB adopted a decision for appointing one Jagat Borthakur, Retired Addl. Deputy Commissioner, as the Enquiry Officer for drawal of departmental proceeding against the petitioner, herein, in its meeting held on 08-06-2010. The said proposal on being placed before the Director of Higher Education, Assam, approval was granted to the same with further stipulation that the whole process be completed within a period of 30 days. Thereafter, it is seen that the Principal In-charge of the College vide communication dated 14-08-2010 had appointed one Mr. A. Das, retired Finance & Accounts Officer as Financial Expert in the said enquiry. After the said developments had taken place the Enquiry Officer, assuming the role of the Disciplinary Authority, proceeded to issue to the petitioner, herein, a show-cause notice dated 15-02-2011, initiating against him a departmental proceeding. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charges so framed against him in the show-cause notice. Thereafter, it is seen that an enquiry was held in the matter. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 02-04-2012. The enquiry report on being placed before the GB of the College, the GB in its meeting held on 03-04-2012 considering the said enquiry report had recommended for imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner. The matter was, thereafter, placed before the Director of Higher Education, Assam for consideration. The Director of Higher Education, Assam on consideration of the matter proceeded vide order dated 30-11-2012, to dismiss the petitioner, herein, from his services w.e.f. 22- 05-2010, on the basis of the enquiry committee’s report and the GB’s resolution adopted thereon. The said order also reflects that the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner had Page No.# 4/17 the approval of the Government in the Education (Higher) Department. Being aggrieved the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 4. Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the very initiation of the proceeding against the petitioner is vitiated, inasmuch as, the materials brought on record would reveal that even if it is assumed that the GB has the power to initiate a departmental proceeding against any of the employees of the College, the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner, herein, admittedly has not been initiated by the GB, inasmuch as, the show-cause notice, issued does not reflect any such decision taken by the GB in the matter. He submits that the show-cause notice having been issued by the Enquiry Officer on his own volition, the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Assam Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (in short the Rules of 1964) read with Rule 8, stood violated and accordingly, the very initiation of the proceeding stood vitiated and accordingly basing on such vitiated proceeding, no penalty could have been imposed upon the petitioner, herein. 5. Mr. Borthakur, without prejudice to the submission made by him with regard to the maintainability of the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner, submits that the show-cause notice was issued in clear violation of the Rule 21 of the Assam Service Pension Rules, 1969 (in short the Rules of 1969). Mr. Borthakur submits that the petitioner was permitted to retire from service on 30-09-2010, upon reaching the age of superannuation. It was after his such retirement that on 15-02-2011, the impugned show- cause notice came to be issued to him. Mr. Borthakur, submits that the proceeding now instituted against the petitioner having not been so instituted in terms of the provisions of Page No.# 5/17 Rule 21 of the Rules of 1969, the proceeding would not be maintainable. Mr. Borthakur by referring to the order passed by the Director of Higher Education, Assam dated 30-11- 2012, submits that the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of dismissal from service by invoking the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1964. He submits that the employee employer relationship having ceased between the petitioner and the respondent authority w.e.f. 30-09-2010, the petitioner could not have been imposed with a penalty under the Rules of 1964. The only permissible penalty that could have been imposed upon the petitioner is one under Rule 21 of the Rules of 1969 to the extent of curtailment of his pension, as may be determined by the competent authority. Mr. Borthakur submits that even the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner also not being in consonance of provision of law governing departmental proceeding against a retired employee, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner would mandate an interference. Mr. Borthakur has also advanced submissions with regard to the merits of the matter. However, the same would be adverted to at a later stage in this judgment, if the occasion so necessitates. 6. Per contra, Mr. D. Upamanu, learned standing counsel, Higher Education, has submitted that after the coming into force of the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Act, 2005 and the Rules there-under of the 2010, the appointing authority being the Director of Higher Education, Assam, the Disciplinary Authority of an employee of a provincialised college would also be the Director of Higher Education, Assam. He, however, submits that in the present case, it is seen that exercising the residual power, under Rule 27 of the Rules of 2010, the GB of the College had initiated proceeding against the petitioner, herein, with the approval of the Director of Higher Page No.# 6/17 Education, Assam. He fairly submits that the petitioner was not subjected to a departmental proceeding during his service tenure and the departmental proceeding stood instituted against him on 15-02-2011 with the issuance of show-cause notice in question, i.e. after the petitioner had proceeded on retirement on reaching the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30-09-2010. He has also fairly submitted that the penalty as imposed upon him vide order dated 30-11-2012 may not be sustainable, inasmuch as, the same was so issued invoking the provision of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1964, which may perhaps not be permissible to be invoked in respect of an employee against whom a departmental proceeding stood initiated after he had proceeded on retirement, on reaching the age of superannuation. 7. Having made the above submission Mr. Upamanu submits that the allegations leveled against the petitioner is very serious in nature and the same pertains to misappropriation of the funds of the College, during his tenure as the Principal In-charge thereof, this Court would permit the respondent authorities to initiate a fresh proceeding against the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law. 8. Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, i.e. the Governing Body (GB) of the Bahona College adopting the arguments of Mr. D. Upamanu, submits that the GB had acted in the matter strictly in terms of the directions issued to it by the Director of Higher Education, Assam. Mr. Mahanta submits that the College authorities not having expertise to frame charges as required to be so framed under the mandate of the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1969, the College authorities had appointed one Jagat Borthakur for the purpose of framing of the charges. He submits that although the show- Page No.# 7/17 cause notice was not found to have been issued by the GB of the College to the petitioner, herein, he by referring to the charge-memo as annexed to the communication dated 15-02-2011, submits that the signature of the President of the GB is available, therein, which reflects that the show-cause notice was issued by the GB and not by the Enquiry Officer. He submits that on conclusion of the enquiry the charges against the petitioner having been found to be established, the same was considered by the GB and a major penalty was proposed to be imposed upon the petitioner and thereafter the matter was referred to the Director of Higher Education, Assam for passing appropriate orders in the matter. He submits that the Director had, thereafter, passed the order dated 30-11- 2012, imposing the penalty of dismissal from service with retrospective effect upon the petitioner, herein. Mr. Mahanta submits that a mere perusal of the charges leveled against the petitioner in the show-cause notice, would bring to the forefront the extent of misappropriation committed by him during the period he had held charge of Principal of the College. He submits that the amount misappropriated by the petitioner being public money, the same must under all circumstances be recovered. Accordingly, he submits that in the event this Court is pleased to interfere with the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, which would again be on technicality, prays that the respondent authorities be permitted to initiate fresh proceeding against the petitioner, herein. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 10. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court at the outset would consider the preliminary issue raised by the petitioner, with regard to the very Page No.# 8/17 maintainability of the proceeding instituted against the petitioner, herein. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset had contended that the show-cause notice dated 15-02-2011, having been issued to the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer, the same would not be maintainable. This Court has perused the show-cause notice dated 15-02-2011 and finds that the same was issued by the Enquiry Officer, by assuming the powers of a Disciplinary Authority. The said show-cause notice dated 15-02-2011, does not reveal that the same was being so issued by the Enquiry Officer, as authorized by the Disciplinary Authority, which in the present case may either be the GB or the Director of Higher Education, Assam. Another interesting factor which has come to the notice of this Court is that the Enquiry Officer while issuing the said show-cause notice dated 15-02-2011 had required the petitioner to submit his show-cause reply to him and further had required the petitioner to communicate to him in the event the petitioner desires to inspect the documents. The said powers are reserved for the Disciplinary Authority under the provision of the Rules of 1964. Section 9(2) of the said Rules of 1964 mandates that the Disciplinary Authority is to frame definite charges on the basis of the allegation on which the enquiry is proposed to be held. The Rules further provides that the charges on being framed, together with the statement of allegations on which they are based is required to be communicated in writing to the delinquent who shall thereafter submit to the Disciplinary Authority within the timeframe prescribed, a written statement in his defence. The term Disciplinary Authority as finding mention in the provision of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1964, is defined in the provisions of Rule 8 of the said Rules of 1964, to mean an appointing authority or by any other authority empowered for the purpose by a Page No.# 9/17 general or special order of the Governor. 11. The above being the position, this Court would examine as to who would be the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner. The petitioner, herein, is an employee of a provincialised College and accordingly, he is covered by the provisions of the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Act of 2005 (in short the Act of 2005). The provisions of the said Act of 2005, on a perusal would reveal that the appointment of both the teaching and the non-teaching staff of the College is to be made by the Director of Higher Education, Assam. The petitioner, herein, was admittedly a teaching staff although he was functioning as the Principal of the College, which was only on ad-hoc basis. Accordingly, it can be held that the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner is the Director of Higher Education being his appointing authority. However, on a perusal of the provisions of the Assam College Employees (Provincialisation) Rules, 2010, which while extending the provisions of the Rules of 1964, to all the employees governed by the provisions of the Act of 2005, has in Rule 27 reserved residual power of an appointing authority upon the GB of the College. It stipulates that the GB of the College shall exercise all other power of appointing authority as per usual norms. A perusal of the provisions of the Act of 2005, as well as that of the Rules of 2010, brings to the forefront that the competent authority had only reserved the right of appointment to the Director, Higher Education, however, he being the appointing authority would also under the provisions of Article 311 be the authority only empowered to impose upon a member governed by the provision of the Act of 2005 and the Rules of 2010, a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service. However, the said position Page No.# 10/17 would be different for the purpose on initiating an enquiry. The GB under Rule 27 of the Rules of 2010 having been conferred with the residual powers of the appointing authority, in absence of any other materials brought on record insofar as the present writ petition is concerned, this Court concludes that the GB of the College having also taken the prior approval of the Director of Higher Education, Assam was within its jurisdiction to initiate the departmental proceeding against the petitioner, herein. 12. Having drawn the above conclusion and presuming the GB as the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, herein, under the provision of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 9, read with Rule 8 of the Rules of 1964, this Court finds that the GB of the College had abdicated its function and the initiation of the departmental proceeding against the petitioner was by the Enquiry Officer. There being no materials brought on record that such initiation by the Enquiry Officer of a departmental proceeding against the petitioner was after due approval for the purpose was granted, along with approval of the charges so framed against the petitioner vide show-cause notice, this Court holds that the issuance of show- cause notice by the Enquiry Officer initiating departmental proceeding against the petitioner was in violation of the provisions of the Rules of 1964. It is settled position of law that despite the provisions of Article 311, which mandates that it is only the appointing authority who can impose upon a delinquent the penalty of dismissal, removal and compulsory retirement, a rule under Section 309 having been framed and therein a specific provision having been made specifying the authority who is empowered to initiate departmental proceeding against a member governed by the Rules of 1964, this Court is of the considered view that no authority other than the specified authority, i.e. the Page No.# 11/17 Disciplinary Authority could initiate such proceeding. This Court in support of its said conclusion relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UoI & Ors. Vs. B.V. Gopinath reported in (2014) 1 SCC 351. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision had drawn the following conclusions:- “41. Disciplinary proceedings against the respondent herein were initiated in terms of Rule 14 of the aforesaid Rules. Rule 14(3) clearly lays down that where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a government servant under Rule 14 or Rule 15, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up the charge sheet. Rule 14(4) again mandates that the disciplinary authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the government servant, a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and the supporting documents including a list of witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be proved. We are unable to interpret this provision as suggested by the Additional Solicitor General, that once the disciplinary authority approves the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, the charge sheet can be drawn up by an authority other than the disciplinary authority. This would destroy the underlying protection guaranteed under Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India. Such procedure would also do violence to the protective provisions contained under Article 311(2) which ensures that no public servant is dismissed, removed or suspended without following a fair procedure in which he/she has been given a reasonable opportunity to meet the allegations contained in the charge sheet. Such a charge sheet can only be issued upon approval by the appointing authority i.e. Finance Minister.” 13. This Court also relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to the Govt. (Home) Vs. Pramod Kumar, IPS & Ors. reported in (2018) 17 SCC 677, wherein the principles laid down in the case of B.V. Gopinath (Supra) came to be reiterated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case had drawn the following conclusions: “21. It is clear that the approval of the disciplinary authority was taken for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. It is also clear from the affidavit that no approval was sought from the disciplinary authority at the time when the charge Page No.# 12/17 memo was issued to the delinquent officer. The submission made on behalf of the Appellant is that approval of the disciplinary authority for initiation of disciplinary proceedings was sufficient and there was no need for another approval for issuance of charge memo. The basis for such submission is that initiation of disciplinary proceedings and issuance of charge memo are at the same stage. We are unable to agree with the submission in view of the judgment of this Court in B.V. Gopinath (supra). In that case the charge memo issued to Mr. Gopinath under Rule 14(3) of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 was quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the Finance Minister did not approve it. The judgment of the Tribunal was affirmed by the High Court. The Union of India, the Appellant therein submitted before this Court that the approval for initiation of the departmental proceedings includes the approval of the charge memo. Such submission was not accepted by this Court on an interpretation of Rule 14(3) which provides that the disciplinary authority shall “draw up or cause to be drawn up” the charge memo. It was held that if any authority other than the disciplinary authority is permitted to draw the charge memo, the same would result in destroying the underlying protection guaranteed under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. 22. Rule 8 (4) of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 also mandates that the disciplinary authority shall “draw up or cause to be drawn up” the charge memo. We see no reason to take a view different from the one taken by this Court in B.V. Gopinath (supra). We also see no substance in the submission made by the Senior Counsel for the State that the said judgment needs reconsideration. Assuming that Mr. Giri is right in his submission that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and issuance of charge memo are at the same stage, the mandatory requirement of Rule 8 which provides for the charge memo to be drawn by the disciplinary authority cannot be ignored. We reject the submission on behalf of the Appellant that Gopinath’s case can be distinguished on facts. We are not in agreement with the contention of the Appellant that the business rules and standing orders of the State of Tamil Nadu are quite different from the office orders and circulars issued by Union of India which formed the basis of the judgment in Gopinath’s case. A close reading of the said judgment would disclose that reliance on the office note was only in addition to the interpretation of the Rule. 23. It is also settled law that if the rule requires something to be done in a particular manner it should be done either in the same manner or not at all- Taylor v. Taylor (1875) 1 Ch. D. 426, 431. In view of the mandatory requirement of Rule 8 (4) and the charge memo being drawn up or cause to be drawn up by the disciplinary authority is not complied with, we are of the considered opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court on this issue. The only addition we would like to make is to give liberty to the disciplinary authority to issue a charge memo afresh after taking approval from the disciplinary authority.” Page No.# 13/17 14. Applying the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of B.V. Gopinath (Supra) and Pramod Kumar (Supra) to the facts of the present case, this Court can safely conclude that the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner was so instituted in clear violation of the provisions of the Rules of 1964, inasmuch as, the show- cause notice/ charge memo was not issued by the Disciplinary Authority and was issued by an authority not envisaged by the provision of the Rules of 1964. 15. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court would now examine the second preliminary objection raised by Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner having superannuated from service w.e.f. 30-09-2010, the show- cause notice issued, thereafter, on 15-02-2011 could not have been so issued ignoring the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules of 1969. It is an admitted position that the petitioner, herein, had retired from his services on 30-09-2010 and it is, thereafter, that the departmental proceeding against him was so instituted vide issuance of show-cause notice dated 15-02-2011. The Disciplinary Authority could not have instituted the proceeding against the petitioner under the provisions of the Rules of 1964 and such proceeding was mandated to be so instituted under the provision of Section 21 of the Rules of 1969. Although the procedure under the provision of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1962, would be mandated to be followed even in proceeding under Section 21of the Rules of 1969. Having noticed the above position and finding that the Rule 21 of the Rules of 1969 was not complied with, this Court is of the view that the show-cause notice dated 15-02- 2011 would not be maintainable and would call for interference. 16. At this stage, this Court would notice that the order dated 30-11-2012, passed by Page No.# 14/17 the Director of Higher Education, Assam, on the matter begin placed before him, after conclusion of the enquiry held in the matter, against the petitioner. The said order being relevant is extracted here-in-below: GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 0 R D ER On the basis of the recommendations of the Enquiry Committee and G.B's Resolution 10 (kha) of Bahona College, Bahona, Jorhat thereon Dr. Cheniram Dutta, Principal, under suspension of Bahona College is hereby dismissed from Services with effect from 22-5-2010 as per Rule-7 of para-7 of the Assam Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 for commission of gross negligence of duty, large scale misappropriation of college fund and gross diversion of college fund etc. as featuring in Inquiry Report This has the approval of the Govt. in Education (Higher) Department vide letter No HE 424/2012/205, did. 26-11-1012. Sd/- P. Jidung Director of Higher Education, Assam Kahilipara, Guwahati-19. Dated Kahilipara, the 30th November, 2012 17. A perusal of the said order would reveal that the petitioner, herein, was imposed with a penalty of dismissal from service w.e.f. 22-05-2010 by invoking the provisions of paragraph 7 of the Rules of 1964. As noticed hereinabove, the petitioner had retired from his service on reaching the age of superannuation w.e.f. 30-09-2010. After 30-09-2010 the employee employer relationship between the petitioner and the respondents ceased. The petitioner, herein, not being a Government servant after 30-09-2010, he could not have been imposed with a penalty under the provisions of the Rules of 1964. The only penalty permissible to be imposed upon the petitioner was that contemplated under the provision of Section 21 of the Rules of 1969. Admittedly the penalty imposed upon the petitioner being one not mandated to be imposed upon him, in the facts and Page No.# 15/17 circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 30- 11-2012, would also mandate interference. 18. The above conclusions drawn by this Court having the effect of an interference being made by this Court with the proceeding instituted against the petitioner, including the penalty so imposed upon him, this Court would now consider the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents for a grant of permission to institute a fresh proceeding in the matter against the petitioner. The said contention is being considered only to be rejected. The allegations forming the basis of the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner, pertains to a period prior to 2011 and even relates back to the year 2005- 06. The penalty in the matter was imposed upon the petitioner in the year 2012, 13 years w.e.f. the date of imposition of penalty, upon the petitioner, has lapsed and the petitioner is found to have been litigating in the matter since then before this Court. The respondent authorities were very callous in their approach in the matter, while initiating proceeding against the petitioner. While the petitioner may be guilty of commission of a misconduct, the manner in which proceeding have been instituted against the petitioner, reveals that the authorities empowered to discipline him were also guilty of not properly conducting the proceeding, which has the effect of exonerating the petitioner. It is submitted at the Bar that the authorities involved in conduct of the proceeding against the petitioner have either passed away and/ or have already retired from their services. Accordingly, this Court does not proceed to make any further comment in this connection, but only observes that the State while dealing with an allegation of misconduct against a person and such allegation also involving allegations of misappropriation of a huge amount of Page No.# 16/17 public money, the State authorities ought to be very careful at every stage of such proceeding. 19. In view of the above discussions and conclusions, the show-cause notice dated 15- 02-2011 stands set aside, along with all proceeding conducted, thereafter, including the enquiry report. The order dated 30-11-2012, passed by the Director of Higher Education, Assam imposing penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner is also set aside. The impugned orders have been set aside, the period of suspension of the petitioner is directed to be regularized as on duty with release of due salaries to him. Thereafter, the respondent authority shall promptly process the matter for releasing to the petitioner his due pension and pensionary benefits and ensure that the same is received by the petitioner, within an outer limit of 06 (six) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 20. It is further provided that the pay and allowances receivable by the petitioner, for the period he was placed under suspension, shall be computed and released to the petitioner. Further, pending finalization of the petitioner’s pension and pensionary benefits, the petitioner be authorized a provisional pension w.e.f. the date of his retirement. The arrears of pay and allowance, along with the arrears of provisional pension be released to the petitioner, within a period of 03 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 21. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. Page No.# 17/17 JUDGE Comparing Assistant