( 1 ) THE disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent? writ petitioner levelling three charges. The first charge related to furnishing of false information regarding name, age and qualification for obtaining employment amounting to mis-representation, the second charge related to moral turpitude and the third charge related to breach of service rules. The Disciplinary Authority had found the writ petitioner guilty of the first charge and had found that the second and third charges were not proved. By the time the disciplinary proceeding was over, the writ petitioner had retired. In the circumstances, 15% of the gratuity payable to the writ petitioner was withheld as punishment on account of misconduct proved under the first charge. Learned single Judge in the judgment and order dated August 30, 2001 passed in W. P. No. 2248 of 1996 under appeal was pleased to hold that in view of sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, no part of the gratuity could be withheld except in the circumstances contemplated in clauses (a) and (b) thereof. Admittedly, none of those clauses are satisfied in this case. Therefore, in our view, he had