IMPORTANT POINT
The President can withhold gratuity if an employee is found guilty of grave misconduct in judicial proceedings, even if the conviction is stayed.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by the order dated 12th May, 2022, whereby petitioner’s claim for release of gratuity and other retiral dues on his superannuation on 31st July, 2020 was dismissed.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”) has not correctly appreciated the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short “the Act of 1972”). It is contended that gratuity cannot be withheld as conviction of the petitioner was stayed by Division Bench of this Court.

3. It is also contended that conviction under Section 304B IPC cannot be treated as a grave misconduct, as it has nothing to do with the official duties of the petitioner.

4. It is further contended that as per Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pensions) Rule, 1972 (for short “the Rules of 1972”), pension and gratuity can be withheld only if pecuniary loss is caused to the Government.

5. It is contended that in the present case, there is no loss caused to the Government. The petitioner has put in 31 years of unblemished service and there was no charge-sheet ever issued to him.

6. It is contended that the petitioner was not charge-sheeted, however, he was subsequently added as an accused and convicted & his conviction and sentence has been suspended and the petitioner is facing hardship as he has not been paid gratuity amount and full pension.

7. It is also argued that as per Explanation (b) of Rule 8(5) of Rules of 1972, the expression ‘grave misconduct’ includes the communication or disclosure of any secret official code or password or any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information, such as is mentioned in Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 so as to prejudicially affect the interests of the general public or the security of the State.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of H.R. Choudhary Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur & Ors; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12437/2012 decided on 27th January, 2017 as well as on the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Mahesh Chandra Soni Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14891/2023, decided on 06th March, 2024.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that ‘misconduct’ and ‘grave misconduct’ are not defined in the Rules of 1972 and therefore, the definition referred in the explanation, as provided in Rule 8(5) of the Rules of 1972 has to be taken note of in deciding as to whether the President can withhold the gratuity on account of grave misconduct.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the petition. It is contended that learned Tribunal has properly dealt with the arguments of the petitioner and has come to the conclusion that conviction for offence under Section 304B IPC is a grave misconduct and the President has a right to withhold the gratuity under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1972.

11. It is also contended that as per Rule 69(1)(C) of the Rules of 1972, no gratuity is payable to the government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon. It is further contended that even if the conviction order has been stayed by the High Court, the judicial proceedings challenging the conviction and sentence, are still pending before the High Court and therefore, the gratuity can be withheld by the Government.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Manish Goel Vs. Rohini Goel; AIR 2010 SC 1099. It is contended that demand of dowry has been included as a misconduct under Rule 13-A of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (for short “the Conduct Rules”) and dowry death is an offence where the deceased is subjected to cruelty and demand of dowry and thus is a graver