IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once departmental proceedings are concluded and an order of penalty has been imposed, the gratuity cannot be withheld on the ground of pendency of civil litigation.

JUDGMENT :

1. The defeated applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench is the petitioner in this Original Petition.

2. The facts as disclosed in the Original Application reveal that the petitioner entered service as a RTP employee in the year 1982. She was absorbed into regular service in the year 1990. She retired from service on 30.11.2016. Alleging that there is a fraud committed by MPKBY agent at Velloor Class II Post Office for a period from 17.9.2007 to 29.5.2011, the petitioner was proceeded departmentally. By Annexure-A1 charge sheet dated 18.7.2016, the applicant was framed for the misconduct under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short ‘CCS (CCA) Rules’]. On culmination of the Departmental enquiry, which by the time, led to the retirement of the petitioner from service resulted in a report dated 24.7.2018. In Annexure-A2, the charges against the petitioner were proved and therefore, the matter was placed before the Government of India to take appropriate decision on the recommendation of withholding of 10% of her monthly pension, otherwise admissible to her, for a period of one year. In relation to the gratuity, it was observed that the admissible gratuity be paid to her if it is not required to be withheld in any other case. By Annexure-A3 order dated 4.10.2018, the said recommendations were accepted by the UPSC and orders were passed in terms of powers vested under Rule 9 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, for withholding of 10% of her monthly pension, otherwise admissible to her during the period of one year. It was reiterated that the gratuity if not otherwise required to be withheld may be released. Immediately on issuance of Annexure-A3 order, the petitioner submitted representation to the Postmaster General under Annexure-A4 on 01.04.2019 requesting for release of the gratuity. This was followed by a series of representations which did not yield any result. Accordingly, the Original Application was preferred before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench.

3. The respondents entered appearance and contested the claim. It was alleged that there was pecuniary loss caused to the Government due to the supervisory lapses on the part of the applicant and the same was quantified at Rs. 32,14,051/-. Specific reliance was also placed on the civil suits filed by the respective depositors claiming recovery of money, wherein the petitioner was also made as a defendant and personal recovery is also sought for. Insofar as the requirement of law was concerned, the respondents took a stand that in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 69(1)(c) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the gratuity also could be withheld.

4. The petitioner filed a re-joinder and in response to the re-joinder, an additional reply statement was also filed. In the additional reply statement, it was specifically averred that the authorities had got the power to withhold the gratuity in terms of Rule 4 of the Central Civil Service (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981. Therefore, it was the specific case of the respondent that in terms of Rule 4 of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 read with Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the decision to withhold the gratuity was proper.

5. On the consideration of materials on record, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench by the order impugned in the present Original Petition came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief sought for and that the authorities can withhold the gratuity on the allegation of loss caused to the Department on account of the supervisory lapses of the petitioner. It is aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has invoked the superintendence power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. We have heard Sri. Sajith Kumar V. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Prenjith Kumar, learned Stand