in a case where neither departmental proceedings nor judicial proceedings are instituted as contemplated by Rule 9(6) of the Pension Rules as on the date of retirement of the Government servant, he immediately becomes entitled to receive the full pension.

(ii) If departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted validly after the retirement of the Government servant, but within the time permissible under Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) or otherwise within the period of limitation, the government would become entitled to fix provisional pension to be paid henceforth till the conclusion of the proceedings and would abide by the final decision arrived at in the proceedings in relation to the payment of the pension.

(iii) While a Government servant does become entitled to receive gratuity upon retirement (when proceedings as contemplated by Rule 9(6) are not in existence on the ate of his retirement),there is no rule that the same is payable immediately upon retirement. If proceedings are validly instituted after the date of retirement of the Government servant, but prior to the disbursement of the gratuity to him, the Government servant cannot claim release of gratuity till so long as the proceedings are not concluded, and the final decision with regard to disbursement of gratuity would abide by the outcome of the proceedings.

4) relevant rules permit the Govt. to withheld certain amount of terminal benefits payable to Govt. servant on his retirement, but the provision of such rules should not be applied in a mechanical manner and each case should be dealt with on its own merit keeping in view the nature of charge against the Govt. servant i.e. whether those are related to financial irregularities committed by the Govt. servant while in service or grave in nature

5) case if any has to be filed before CAT

Tribunal in the case of TejPal Singh Tuli Vs. UOI & Ors.(OA-3312/2009) wherein it was held that there has to be nexus between allegation in criminal case and official duty of concerned employee in the absence of which there may be no justification to carry on departmental proceedings against employee. Para 9 of the said judgment read as under:-

9. I find that this Tribunal in OA-2411/2007 has as recently as on 19.12.2008. I the case of Jogeshwar Mahanta Vs. UOI relating to matrimonial discard, in which the applicant had been proceeded under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by issue of chargesheet on the basis of allegations made by the wife, decided that there has to be a nexus with official duty and whereas the applicant may be still embroiled in matrimonial dispute with his wife, them would be no justification to carry on with the departmental proceedings against him. The charge memo was therefore quashed and the application was allowed.

4. In the case of I.Yesudanam OA-2281/2009 it was held that the leave encashment and other retirement benefits could not be withheld on the ground of pendency of judicial proceedings. In the said case this Tribunal viewed that even during pendency of judicial proceedings, Govt. servant is entitled to release of leave encashment, CGIES and GPF amount payable to him. Relevant excerpt of the order passed in said case read as under:-

11. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal in OA-2154/2002, relied upon by the applicant, shows that Sh. J.P. Sharma was suspended on 26.02.2001 under Rule 10(1)(b) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and superannuated on 31.03.2002 whereupon a provisional pension in terms of Rule 69 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 was granted to him. He had sought payment of all retiral dues such as gratuity, leave encashment, full pension etc. with interest although he was involved in a case of embezzlement of government money and FIR was filed with respect to offences under Section 120-B, 420, 468, 477-A, IPC and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) of P.C. Act, 1988. Having considered the submissions made and provisions of the various Rules the Tribunal found that while no judicial proceedings could be said to have been instituted or deemed to be so, the applicant having been suspended, departmental proceedings would be deemed to have been instituted against him as per Rule (9)(6)(a) of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 and therefore on.ly a provisional pension could be paid. Further by reference to Rule 9(4) and 3(o) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in D.V. Kapoor Vs. UOI and Ors., (1990) 4 SCC 314, the Tribunal noted that use of the term pension was in contradistinction to gratuity, and thus gratuity would be payable. Again by a reference to CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, particularly Rule 39(3) thereof it was noted that the competent authority could withhold cash equivalent of earned leave in such a case if there was a possibility of some money becoming recoverable on conclusion of the criminal/disciplinary proceedings. It was held that in absence of such satisfaction of the concerned authority having been expressed by an order in writing, the leave encashment could not have been withheld. In this background the applicant was found to be entitled to leave encashment and gratuity and also to provisional pension only.

you can file discharge petition before trial court

2) mention that there is no evidence on record against you . There are no direct lapses/irregularities/ embezzlement on my part. There is no proof/witness/recovery from you It was all done by a junior officer of the Branch

3) trial court after considering evidence on record and after hearing CBI pass orders

According to verdicts of the Hon'ble Apex Court, Disciplinary proceeding is said to be initiated only when a charge sheet is issued. In your case, if the charge sheet was issued to you (in the departmental case) post your retirement, the the bank cannot invoke regulation 20(3)(iii) of Bank's (Officers’) Service Regulations to deny the post retiral benefits. If this is the position, you may approach the High Court having competent jurisdiction in the matter and you have a good case.

It is always open for you to move a discharge application in the criminal case filed against you. You may take your chance and in case it is rejected, you have the option to approach the High Court in a petition under section 482CRPC.

In Supreme court case in J.B. Chaudhry vs Indian Overseas Bank & Ors. on 22 August, 2013, it was observed as under:

One thing is clear from all the judgments which have been cited on behalf of both the parties that Supreme Court has held that there must be an entitlement in accordance with the statutory rules or rules of the organization which entitle withholding of terminal benefits such as pension or gratuity or other terminal benefits and if rules so provide then enquiry proceedings can be held even after retirement of an employee. I may note that rules, whether the same are statutory or they are non- statutory rules of the organization, will pertain to different heads of payment to be made for different terminal benefits such as pension or gratuity or provident fund or leave encashment and the like. What is required to be emphasized is that whenever an employer-organization seeks to withhold or forfeit any payment under any one particular head of terminal benefits payable to an employee on superannuation, that action qua that head of terminal benefit will have to be justified in accordance with the relevant rules as applicable, whether statutory or otherwise. None of the judgments of the Supreme Court (except the judgment in the case of Jaswant Singh Gill (supra) and which is discussed hereinafter) state that there is disentitlement to withhold or forfeit terminal benefits or to continue with the enquiry even if there does exist, either any statutory rules or rules of the employer- organization for the purpose. The most important aspect to be noted is of distinction between enquiries to impose punishment to an employee and those enquiries to withhold or forfeit certain terminal benefits. While the latter is permitted even after retirement in accordance with the relevant provisions, the former is not permitted vide para 6 of the M.H.Mazumdar's case.

In Madras High Court

P.Muthusamy vs Tamilnadu Cements on 31 August, 2006, ut was observed:

Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus after calling for the concerned records from the respondents, quash the order of the first respondent dated 30.06.2003 bearing Rc. No.3336/A3/95-1 in so far as it refers to the charge memos dated 16.09.2002 (WP.18592/03) and 15.05.2001 (WP.18593/03) in so far as they mention that the petitioner is being retired without prejudice to the pending disciplinary proceedings and by withholding his terminal benefits as illegal, arbitrary, without any authority, without jurisdiction and contrary to the service regulation of the first respondent Corporation; and consequently direct the 1st respondent to pay the petitioner all the terminal benefits (Gratuity, Provident Fund and Leave Encashment) along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

Held:

Consequently, we hold that the petitioner is entitled to all the terminal benefits and the same have to be disbursed to him within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. It is for the first respondent/Corporation to incorporate relevant provisions in their Service Rules as prevailing in all other Service Rules applicable to government servants so that disciplinary proceedings could be continued even after a charged employee is permitted to retire on his attaining the age of superannuation.

9. Both the Writ Petitions are allowed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

Thus you may file a writ of mandamus before high court invoking article 226 of the constitution for relief and remedy.

CBI then informed that they wanted to file a supplementary chargesheet and has not filed till date. The court is also annoyed at this delay.

CBI has also filed an appeal against not taking cognizance of charges of sections under IPC in High Court of Delhi which has neither stayed nor set aside the order. It has just asked us to file our written reply.

You file your reply and then proceed with the mater so that it can be moved to next stage.

As the CBI is taking undue long time if filing the supplementary chargesheet, somebody has advised me to file a discharge petition in the CBI court.

What are the prospectus /probable outcome of filing a discharge petition ?

Instead you can try the option of fling quash petition citing the unnecessary delay which causes you hardship to get your terminal benefits and survival.

You have not reproduced order passed by HC in writ petition filed by you

2) if you are aggrieved by said order you can file SLP in SC against said dismissal

3) it is necessary to peruse judgment of HC to advice further