The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of pension and gratuity as earned benefits, the authority of the employer to withhold gratuity during disciplinary proceedings, and the lack of reference to specific rules in the notices and orders.

JUDGMENT

S. Sujatha, J. - This intra Court appeal is filed by the appellant-Sahitya Akademi assailing the order dated 26.07.2019 passed in W.P. No. 28348/2014 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent herein has been allowed.

2. The appellant-Sahitya Akademi claims to be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960. The Service Bye-laws of 1999 ['Bye-laws' for short] of the Society has come into effect on 04.08.2000 being finally approved by the Executive Board.

3. The respondent contends that he joined the services of the appellant-Sahitya Akademi in 1986 as the Deputy Secretary, Southern Regional Office, he thereafter promoted to the post of Regional Secretary, Southern Regional Office. He was appointed as the secretary of the appellant-Sahitya Akademi on 16.05.2006 and retired on 31.01.2013 after attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner has challenged the letter-second show cause notice dated 13.11.2013 [Annexure-AB] issued by the appellant-Sahitya Akademi along with the enquiry report and the order dated 03.06.2014 [Annexure-AC] issued by the appellant-Sahitya Akademi inter alia challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent thereby restraining the appellant-Sahitya Akademi from deducting any amount from the pension, increments and other emoluments accruable to the respondent with other consequential reliefs.

4. The matter was contested by the appellant-Sahitya Akademi. The Learned Single Judge after hearing both sides, allowed the petition answering the three issues formulated therein as under:

"(a) This Court has territorial jurisdiction in view of factual aspects analyzed in the proceeding paragraphs.

(b) Petitioner was a Regular holder of the post of Secretary in terms of service byelaws of the Akademi and he was appointed against pay scale with reference to Central Government pay scale read with role of Ministry of Culture, Government of India. Respondent-Akademi would come under purview under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

(c) Petitioner was regular holder of the post of Secretary with particular scale of pay. Various Government of India Rules and Executive orders are invoked in connection with service conditions, as is evident from Bye-law. Annexure-AB dated 13.11.2013 and Annexure-AC 3.6.2014 are set aside."

Being aggrieved by the said order, the Sahitya Akademi has preferred this writ appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has not seriously pressed the jurisdictional aspect and the status of the appellant as authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the challenge now is focused on Clause[c] of the paragraph 33 of the learned Single Judge's order in quashing the Annexure-AB and Annexure-AC dated 13.11.2013 and 03.06.2014 respectively.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge having recorded a finding that the pay, increment, pension, gratuity, holiday, service conditions of the Sahitya Akademi being governed by the same Rules as are applicable to Central Government Employees, erred in coming to a conclusion that there is no provision for continuation of the departmental enquiry after the retirement of the employee and to recover the loss. Inviting the attention of the Court to Rule 9 of Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 ['Rules' for short] read with para 31 of Chapter VII-General Provident Fund and para 36 of Chapter IX of the Sahitya Akademi Service Bye-laws, submitted that the interpretation given to para 17 relating to penalties in the Bye-laws runs contrary to the objective of Bye-laws and the Rules. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited V/s. Rabindranath Choubey in support of his contention that the employer-Sahitya Akademi can withhold the payment of gratuity of the respondent [employee], after his superannuation from service as the disciplinary proceedings were