JUDGMENT

Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. - Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Verma, learned Assistant Solicitor General (hereinafter referred to as 'ASG') for the petitioners and Mr. Om Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The petitioners have moved the Court being aggrieved by the order dated 04.11.2019, passed in O.A. No. 847 of 2018, by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').

3. By the said order, the learned Tribunal has allowed the Original Application filed by the respondent directing the petitioners to pay the gratuity due upon retirement to the respondent along with statutory interest within three months of the receipt of the order as also consequential benefit in the form of commutation of value of pension, if eligible, within the said period.

4. The brief facts of the case are that against the respondent, a departmental proceeding was initiated on 27.07.2010 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and a Memorandum of Charge was served on him. Thereafter, the respondent superannuated on 31.08.2010 resulting in conversion of the departmental proceeding under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CCS (Pension) Rules'). Upon submission of enquiry report, the departmental proceeding was ultimately concluded by passing order dated 05.06.2015, imposing penalty of withholding 20% of the monthly pension for a period of two years. However, it was recorded that gratuity of the respondent would be paid, if not required otherwise. In the meantime, on 12.03.2013, the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the 'CBF) registered a case against various persons, including the respondent, with regard to a different matter, unconnected with the present departmental proceeding. Therein, a chargesheet was submitted against the accused, including the respondent, by the CBI on 24.06.2015. Thereupon, the Special Court, CBI took cognizance by order dated 02.11.2017. Later, as chargesheet had been submitted against the respondent by the CBI on 24.06.2015, vide order dated 19.09.2017, the authorities clarified that gratuity would not be payable to the respondent, relying on Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent's challenge to such withholding of gratuity ultimately resulted in passing of the impugned order, which directed the petitioners to pay the gratuity amount to the respondent, if not otherwise required.

5. Learned ASG for the petitioners submitted that the authorities were well within their right to withhold gratuity in view of Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. The same reads as under:

" 9. Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension

(1) The President reserves to himself the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement:

Provided that the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed:

Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pensions shall not be reduced below the amount of Rupees Three thousand five hundred per mensem.

(2) (a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were co