JUDGMENT

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.

(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment of the central Administrative tribunal (Cuttack bench) allowing the original application filed by the respondent and directing the appellants (respondents in the original application) to release final pension and gratuity to the respondent within ninety days of the judgment.

(3) THE respondent was a member of the Indian Police Service. He retired on 31/12/1990. About six months prior to his retirement, a raid was conducted on his residential premises. On the basis of the material recovered, a prosecution has been launched against him in the Special court. Cuttack under Section 13(2 read with Section 13(1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for being in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. [According to Section 13(1 of the said Act, misconduct includes being in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income.] The case is still pending. In view of the pendency of the said criminal case, the appellants withheld the gratuity amount and did not also sanction the pension finally. A provisional pension equal to ninety per cent of his entitlement was, however, sanctioned. Aggrieved by the refusal to release the gratuity amount and the refusal to sanction his pension finally, the respondent approached the tribunal.

(4) THE appellants relied upon Rule 6 of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 in support of their action. The appellants case was that in view of the pendency of the said criminal case, they were justified in withholding the gratuity amount and also in not sanctioning the pension finally. The tribunal has held that the said rule does not avail the appellants inasmuch as the charge against the respondent is not one of causing pecuniary loss to the central or State government by misconduct or negligence within the meaning of Rule 6(1. We are of the opinion that the reading of the rule by the tribunal is unsustainable and incorrect. The rule reads thus:

"6. Recovery from pension.- (1 The central government reserves to itself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the central or a State government, if the pensioner is found in a departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct or to have caused pecuniary loss to the central or a State government by misconduct or negligence during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement: Provided that no such order shall be passed without consulting the Union public service commission: Provided further that- (a) such departmental proceeding, if instituted while the pensioner was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the pensioner, be deemed to be a proceeding under this sub-rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the pensioner had continued in service; (b)-(c) (Omitted as unnecessary) Explanation. - For the purpose of this rule - (a) a departmental proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted when the charges framed against the pensioner are issued to him or, if he has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and (b) ajudicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted - (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which a complaint is made or a charge-sheet is submitted, to the criminal court; and (ii) in the case of a civil proceedings, on the date on which the plaint is presented or, as the case may be, an application is made, to a civil court. (2 Where any departmental or judicial proceeding is instituted under sub-rule (1, or where a departmental proceed