.

JUDGMENT :

J.S. Khehar, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. K. Srivatsan, the Respondent in this instant appeal came to be inducted into the Delhi Administration Subordinate Service. The instant employment, for all intends and purposes, may be considered as his parent cadre. On 23.9.2003, he was transferred by way of deputation, to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. In the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, he was appointed as an Administrative Officer, Land and Estate Department. In addition to the aforesaid responsibilities, the Respondent was vested with the charge of Dealing Assistant in the Land and Estate Department.

3. Whilst the Respondent was on deputation, charges of financial dereliction and favoritism came to be levelled against him. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi was of the view, that as a consequence of unauthorised decisions of the Respondent, it had to suffer extensive financial loss running into crores of rupees. It is for the aforesaid reason, that the Respondent came to be suspended by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 3.12.2007. The above order of suspension was, however, revoked on 5.2.2008.

4. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi, again placed the Respondent under suspension by an order dated 29.2.2008. It thereupon passed an order dated 26.3.2008, ordering repatriation of the Respondent to his parent cadre. On 19.5.2008, the Respondent's parent department, i.e., the Delhi Administration, informed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, that the Respondent could not be repatriated, as he had been placed under suspension. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, that the Respondent remained with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. He also remained under suspension. On 30.06.2008, the Respondent attained the age of superannuation. On that very day, his repatriation to the parent department was accepted.

5. On 27.06.2008, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi lodged a complaint to the Central Bureau of Investigation making allegations, inter alia, against the Respondent, and recommended the initiation of action under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The CBI registered the first information report, on the basis of the above complaint on 30.06.2008. Having investigated into the matter, the CBI submitted its closure report on 28.1.2010. The aforesaid closure report was accepted on 15.10.2012. On 19.04.2012, the CBI recommended departmental action against the Respondent. After the recommendations of departmental action by the CBI, a charge sheet was issued to the Respondent on 19.4.2012. The Respondent received the aforesaid charge sheet on 7.5.2012.

6. The controversy in the present case hinges on the entitlement of the Respondent to gratuity immediately after his superannuation on 30.06.2008. Since gratuity was not paid to him, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') by filing Original Application No. 1188 of 2011. The above original application came to be allowed by the Tribunal on 15.11.2011.

7. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal, the Appellants before this Court preferred Writ Petition No. 2495 of 2012 before the High Court of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'High Court'). During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the Respondent filed Contempt Petition No. 138 of 2012. It is not a matter of dispute, that consequent upon initiation of the above contempt petition, the Respondent was released his gratuity. Writ Petition No. 2495 of 2012 was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 30.04.2012. The order dated 30.04.2012 has been impugned by the Appellants before this Court.

8. Insofar as the issue of release of gratuity is concerned, it is not a matter of dispute that the same is regulated by Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Pension Rules'). Rule 9 is being extracted hereunder:

9. Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension

(1) The President res