ORDER
1. The petitioner was working as Assistant General Manager with the respondent No.l and after completing total service of forty years he was due for superannuation. He retired from service on 31-10-1988. He was given a letter by the General Manager of the respondent No.l on 30-9-1988 that he would retire from service of the first respondent, at the end of October 1988 due to attainment of age of superannuation. Accordingly, the petitionerwas permitted to retire on 31 -10-198 8 by the respondent No. 1 and he was relieved on that day by the order of the General Manager of the first respondent dated 31-10-1988. In spite of the fact that the petitioner retired from service his provident fund and gratuity were not paid to him. The petitioner made a representation to the respondent No. 1 for claiming such gratuity and provident fund. The provident fund amount was subsequently paid to him but the gratuity amount continued to be withheld. On petitioner's enquiry the General Manager of the respondent No. 1 informed by communication No. S.P.67/88 on 8-12-1988 that the payment of gratuity was stopped as required by the District Cooperative Officer, Vizianagaram vide his letter dated 29-10-1988. The petitioner has therefore come to seek a direction that his gratuity payable to him should be directed to be paid without delay.
2. It may be pointed out that no counter has been filed by the respondent No. 1 in spite of the fact that the matter has been pending for last about ten years.
3. The second respondent has filed counter stating that enquiry was initiated in respect of the affairs of the Bank. The petitioner was the Branch Manager of the Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Vizianagaram from 1979 to 1980. In the enquiry report conducted then, it was detected that certain irregularities were committed which resulted in loss to the Bank. It was further contended that on 31-1-1983 the District Cooperative Central Bank was informed to take severe action against persons concerned. The Collector of Cooperation had also sanctioned prosecution against five persons, including the petitioner, for having committed those lapses amounting to criminal offences. The case was under investigation with police. It was next staled that as per Rule 52(l)(c) of A.P. Pension Rules, 1980 the gratuity can be withheld until conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceeding and therefore in view of this provision that therespondent No.2 had given direction to the respondent No.l that pending judicial or departmental proceedings the pensionary benefits should not be paid to the petitioner:
4. It is true that under the A-P.Pension Rules if an employee is facing a departmental enquiry or facing a criminal trial before Court he is permitted to retire from service and his retirement benefits can be withheld. However, in the instant case, there is absolutely no material to show that a criminal case was pending or that a departmental proceeding was pending against the petitioner. What the counter of the respondent No.2 shows is that a departmental proceeding was to be initiated against the petitioner and that investigation was in progress in respect of criminal charge. Therefore, there was no pending criminal case or a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner at the lime of his retirement. Furthermore the respondent No. 1 had specifically allowed the petitioner to retire from service on superannuation on 31-10-1988 and he was accordingly relieved on 31-10-1988. The petitioner having been permitted to retire on attaining the age of superannuation there was no question of withholding his retiral benefits thereafter. Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act is quite clear and it makes it incumbent on the employer to pay the amount of gratuity if the employee on termination of his employment due to superannuation claims such retiral benefits. It is only under sub-section (6) that the gratuity can be withheld if the employee, whose services come to an end due to termination, on account of damages or loss caused to the property of the employer and that the gratuity can be forfeited to the extent of damage or loss. As pointed out earlier, the petitioner's services have not been terminated on account of wilful omission or loss caused to the employer. It may be stated at the cost of the repetition, the petitioner's employment came to an end due to superannuation as ordered by the respondent No. 1 itself The gratuity payable to an employee can be partially or wholly forfeited if the services of the employee have been terminated on any disciplinary charge or, if the services of the employee have beenterminated for an offence involving moral turpitude. Again it may be pointed out that the services of the petitioner have not been terminated on any of these counts, but he attained superannuation and he was relieved on superannuation as per order of the respondent No. 1. In the circumstances, subsection (6) of Section 4 of Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 cannot be invoked by any of the respondents.
5. In the circumstances, there is no justification for withholding the gratuity of the petitioner. The respondents are directed to pay the amount of gratuity that has become due to the petitioner, within six months from today according to the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
6. Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.