Recovery from gratuity is not permissible under any circumstance other than those enumerated in Section 4(6) of The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri N. N. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Sarin, learned standing counsel. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order of punishment dated April 2, 2007 passed by the opposite party no. 3 as contained in Annexure 5 to the writ petition as well as inquiry report submitted against the petitioner. It has further been prayed that opposite parties may be directed to release all the amount of retiral benefits like Provident fund, Gratuity, Insurance and Pension etc. to the petitioner as payable to him under law. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was initially appointed on the post of temporary overseer in the Public Works Department on december 9, 1970. In pursuant to the appointment order dated December 9, 1970, the petitioner joined on the said post on January 9, 1971. Thereafter, the petitioner continued in service on the post of Overseer, which was later on re-designated as Junior Engineer. According to him, after the enforcement of U. P. Regularization of ad hoc Appointments (outside the purview of the Public Service commission) Rules, 1969, the services of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated May 14, 1984 by saying that. his services were no more required in the department. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a writ petition, which was numbered as writ petition no. 2730 of 1984, before this Court and this court, vide order dated April 16, 2007, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated may 14, 1984 with consequential benefits. It was also provided that it will be open for the opposite parties to consider the petitioners case afresh in accordance with Rules and shall pass appropriate orders for payment of post retiral dues, keeping in mind the fact that the petitioner continued in service up to the age of superannuation i. e. upto January 31, 2007.

( 3 ) PRIOR to his retirement, it has been alleged that the petitioner was involved in a case of making the excess payment to one builder bachhewar Constructions Pvt. Ltd. , Mumbai, along with his superior officers, namely, Chief engineer and Assistant Engineer at the construction Division Office, Sultanpur and as such, he was placed under suspension and later on he was issued a charge-sheet vide letter dated february 18, 2006 by the opposite party No. 3. In response to the charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply vide his letter dated April 19, 2006 to the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner was not informed about the said inquiry and the Inquiry Officer, without fixing any date, time and place, proceeded ex-parte with the inquiry.

( 4 ) IT has been contended that after conclusion of the said inquiry, a letter dated june 13, 2006 was written by the Inquiry officer requiring the petitioner for personal appearance on June 26, 2006. In compliance thereof, the petitioner appeared on June 26, 2006 but neither any hearing was done by the inquiry Officer with regards to the matter of inquiry nor the petitioners statement was recorded by the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on November 27, 2006 to the petitioner. In response thereof, the petitioner submitted his reply on December 16, 2006 but without looking to the reply submitted by the petitioner, the opposite party No. 3 passed the impugned order dated April 2, 2007, whereby a recovery of an amount of Rs. 3,49,746. 50 was ordered and further a censure entry was also recorded. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition inter alia on the grounds that the Inquiry officer has not fixed any date, time and place for making the inquiry and further no proceedings were held by the Inquiry Officer in the matter after receiving the reply of the petitioner against the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner and as such, the inquiry so conducted by the Inquiry Officer is vitiated and the order passed on the basis of the said report is not tenable in the eyes of l