LNR, J.

1. The petitioner joined the service of the Irrigation and Command Area Development in the Government of Andhra Pradesh as Junior Engineer. He retired from service on 31.05.2006 as Executive Engineer. Seven months thereafter i.e., on 31.01.2007, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.128, Irrigation & CAD (Ser.VII(V&E-2) Department, framing certain charges against the petitioner. Provisional pension was released to him. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and after conducting a detailed enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner, he submitted a report on 18.08.2010, holding that the charges were not proved. However, the 1st respondent has taken a provisional decision to differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, it has issued a Memo, dated 14.07.2011, requiring the petitioner to explain, as to why a different view be not taken on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner claims to have submitted his reply to the same.

2. The petitioner filed O.A.No.4740 of 2011 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, 5th respondent, with a prayer to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to release the retirement benefits with interest. During the pendency of the O.A., the 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.548, Irrigation & CAD (Ser.VII(V&E-2) Department, dated 09.05.2012, dropping the charges. Through its order, dated 05.03.2013, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A., directing that the respondents 1 to 4 shall pay interest on delayed payment from the date of issuance of G.O.Rt.No.548, dated 09.05.2012, in accordance with the Government’s Circular Memo, dated 20.02.2006, that provides for rate of interest and other allied matters. Not satisfied with that, the petitioner has approached this Court. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the respondents 1 to 4, explaining the purport of the relevant provisions of law.

3. Ms. Kranthi K. Vaka, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the right of an employee to receive pension and other retirement benefits, on attaining the age of superannuation, can not be denied, except where disciplinary or judicial proceedings were pending against him, as on the date of his retirement. She contends that no disciplinary or judicial proceedings were pending against the petitioner at the time of his retirement, and the Charge Memo was issued seven months after the retirement. She contends that there was no scope for the respondents 1 to 4 to invoke their power to withhold pension or gratuity, under Rule 46 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short ‘the Pension Rules’). She submits that the view expressed by the Tribunal that the interest has to be paid from the date of dropping the disciplinary proceedings, cannot be sustained in law.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II, on the other hand, submits that provisional pension and other benefits, except the gratuity were released to the petitioner, much before the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, and that the gratuity could not have been paid, as long as the disciplinary proceedings were pending. He further submits that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated under the relevant provisions of law, and that the petitioner cannot insist on payment of all the retirement benefits, even when disciplinary proceedings were pending.

5. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the entitlement of an employee to receive pension is right to property and it is only when valid legal basis exists, that the pension and other benefits can be withheld. In the normal course of things, retirement benefits need to be extended to the employee, soon after his retirement. In case any disciplinary proceedings were pending against the employee by the time he retired, what becomes payable is only a provisional pension. The Government would have every right to withhold the other benefits, including gratuity, if the disciplinary proceedings were pending as on the date of retirement.

6