JUDGMENT :

V. SUJATHA, J.

1. The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:

“to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Rc. No. 140/2017-A3.1 dated 5-9-2017 releasing part provisional pension by withholding full gratuity and not releasing full pension and other pensioner benefits to petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Violation of the AP Revised Pensionerary Rules, 1980 and contrary to the G.O.Rt. No. 1097 Finance and Plannind (FW-PEN.I) Department dated 22.06.2000 and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondent authorities to release the full gratuity and other pensionary benefits which are pending to the petitioner forthwith and pass such other order or orders.....”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner initially joined as attendar in the 3rd respondent department and thereafter, he was promoted as Senior Assistant, while so, after attaining the age of super annuation, the petitioner got retired from the services on 31.05.2016. While the petitioner was working as Senior Assistant in Pandugala Commercial Taxes Border Checkpost, Dachepalli Mandal, Guntur District, all of a sudden on 15.03.2016, a surprise check was conducted by Anti Corruption Bureau and during the course of that surprise check, the Anti Corruption Bureau authorities found Rs. 350/- from the petitioner which got tallied with the amounts entered in the personal cash register.

3. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent herein, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner vide Rc. No. 80 of 2016/D2, dated 29.04.2016, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 05.05.2016. While so, the petitioner got retired from his service on attaining the age of superannuation and as no further action been initiated against him, he was under the impression that the said proceedings have been stalled. But, however, to his surprise, the impugned order vide Rc. No. 140/2017-A3.1, dated 05.09.2017, the 3rd respondent sanctioned only 75% of the provisional pension, withholding the full gratuity of the petitioner and subsequently considering the request of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent had released the leave encashment and GPF to the petitioner, but however have withheld the gratuity till today, which is under challenge before this Court.

4. The 3rd respondent filed his counter stating that the State Government reserves the right of withholding a pension or gratuity or both either in full or in part or withdrawing in full or in part whether prematurely or for a specified period and for ordering recovery from the pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government and to the local authority, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the petitioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service including service rendered to which employment after retirement. He further stated the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as claimed herein, as it is contrary to Rule 96(a) and (b).

5. When this Court directed the learned Government Pleader for Services-I to get instructions as to whether any departmental proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner or not, the petitioner produced a copy of the letter dated 12.10.2022 addressed by the Additional Secretary to Government, Revenue (CT-II) Department, wherein it is stated that after receipt of the final report from the ACB, the Government after examining the matter, placed the same before the Tribunal for initiating disciplinary proceedings vide memo dated 19.02.2018. He further submitted that the disciplinary proceedings could not be initiated against the petitioner as the file is not available and prayed to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that the relief sought by the petitioner is contrary to the Rule 9 sub-rule 6(a) and (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Service Pension Rules