“5. On the basis of facts pleaded, it appears that the petitioner was admittedly retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2002 and he has not been p aid is retirement benefits of gratuity as well as leave salary as due and admissible to him. Though the gratuity as well as leave salary have been sanctioned vide letter dated 15.5.2009, the same have been withheld due to the fact that on the basis of the internal audit conducted by the corporation, an amount of Rs.5,81,131/- in total recoverable from the petitioner, out of which Rs.61,053,29/has been recovered. Therefore, the Chief Audit Officer submitted a report on 3.5.2005 showing an outstanding of Rs.5,20,077.25/-. Since the Triangular Committee has not finalized the audit report involving recovery of Rs.5,81,131/-, the sanctioned amount such as gratify as well as leave salary have not been released in favour of the petitioner and no proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner while he was in employment for recovery of outstanding dues pursuant to the report of the Chief Audit Officer dated 3.5.2005. Per contra, all the Divisional Managers, under whom the petitioner has served during his service period have submitted No Due Certificates and No objection Certificates. Therefore, withholding the retirement benefits admissible to the petitioner such as gratuity as well as leave salary without initiating any disciplinary proceeding to determine the liability, only on the basis of the audit report after his retirement is without authority of law. More so, the ground taken that the entitlement of the petitioner such as gratuity and leave salary have been sanctioned and shall be released after final settlement of outstanding dues i.e. Rs.5,81,131/- by the Triangular Committee in the light of the judgment of this court in W.P.(C) NO.16071 of 2006 (Raghabananda Das v.
