The term "termination of employment" under Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, includes termination by superannuation, and Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations permits deduction from pension in cases of grave misconduct or causing pecuniary loss to the Government during service.

( 1 ) THROUGH this writ petition the petitioner Kirshna Kumar who retired as Deputy Excise Commissioner, has challenged the order dated 03. 11. 1995, (as contained in annexure no. 6 to the writ petition)deducting Rs. 1,66,580/- from his gratuity amount and deducting 10% of the pension admissible to him and as prayed for issuance of direction restoring all benefits of service to him and for releasing his gratuity amount forthwith

( 2 ) THE Petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 30. 05. 1991 alleging that due to his negligence and misconduct the Government suffered a loss of Rs. 40780/- in the financial year 1983-84 while he was posted at Deoria and further loss of Rs. 1,25,800/- while he was posted at Allahabad. The Joint Excise Commissioner who was appointed enquiry officer to enquire into the charges, conducted enquiry and submitted his report on 30. 12. 1991, as contained in annexure no. 5 to the writ petition, suggesting to be discharged of the allegations. The controlling Officer examined the enquiry report. The government did not agree with the recommendations of the enquiry officer and passed the impugned order as contained in the annexure no. 6 to the writ petition deducting Rs. 1,66,580/- from the total gratuity amount of the petitioner and further in deducting 10% of the pension admissible to him.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of the government on the ground that deduction from gratuity is permissible under section 4 (6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 only in the case of termination of an employee whereas his services were not terminated by the Government rather he retired from service on 31. 05. 1991 and thus the deduction in gratuity was not permissible and since he was not given any opportunity of hearing before passing of the order of deduction of pension therefore principles of natural justice has been violated. His further case is that the enquiry officer had recommended for discharging him from the allegations and in this back drop since the Government disagreed with the report of the enquiry officer he should have been given an opportunity of hearing but the same was not given and, therefore, the punishment is bad in the eye of law and fit to be quashed by the court.

( 4 ) WE have heard Sri V. M. Sahai, learned counsel representing the petitioner and Sri. P. K. Bisaria, learned Standing Counsel representing the Respondents, perused the writ petition, Counter and rejoinder Affidavits. Also perued the original file maintained in the secretariat concerning the petitioner which was directed to be produced and which was made available by Sri Bisaria. The petitioners file shows that the charge-sheet was served on him on 30. 04. 1991; that the enquiry officer had found the charges alleging loss caused to the Government during the service tenure of this petitioner at Deoria and at Allahabad proved but did not recommend for any punishment rather observed that since the petitioner has retired from service he should be discharged from the allegations levelled in the enquiry officer and the Honble Chief Minister awarded the punishment of recovery of the amount of loss caused to the Government from the gratuity of the petitioner and for 10% deduction in his pension; that the report of the enquiry officer alongwith opinion /order of the Government was communicated to the petitioner by registered post on 19. 09. 1992 directing him to furnish his representation; that the petitioner, however did not submit any representation; and that after waiting for 40 days the government referred the matter for approval of the Public Service commission and on obtaining the concurence of the Public Service commission the impugned punishment.

( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, we do not find any merit in the allegation of the petitioner that he was not given any resonable opportunity.

( 6 ) IN regard to the attack of Mr. Sahai sagainst the order of deduction of the amount of Rs. 1. 66 lacs and odd from the gratuity of th