Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner, who has retired on 30.6.2012 from the post of Marketing Inspector, has filed this petition with the prayer that the order dated 24.7.2013 passed by the Regional Food Controller, Faizabad Region, Faizabad whereby part of the gratuity amount of Rs. 2,62,271/- has been withheld for recovering the same on account of the alleged loss caused to the State Exchequer by the petitioner, be quashed. The petitioner has also prayed that the pension payment order dated 4.1.2013 be also quashed to the extent it withholds the amount of leave encashement. Further prayer has been made for commanding the opposite party No. 4 to accord the benefit of IIIrd Assured Career Progression to the petitioner with effect from 1.12.2008 in terms of the prevalent Government Order and further that the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the GPF amount.

3. So far as the prayer relating to withholding of the leave encashement amount is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said amount has been released. Accordingly, the prayer made in this petition in respect of the same has been rendered infructuous. As regards the prayer relating to grant of the benefit of IIIrd Assured Career Progression to the petitioner, it has been informed that the said benefit has also been given to him which renders the prayer made in this regard infructuous. The petitioner, has, since been permitted to withdraw the amount of GPF, hence in this view, the prayer made in this regard has also become infructuous.

4. The sole issue which now survives for consideration in this case is as to whether the part of the amount of gratuity i.e. the sum of Rs. 2,62,271/- has legally been withheld by the Regional Food Controller, Faizabad Division, Faizabad by passing the impugned order.

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of retirement, the petitioner was not facing any departmental inquiry, neither any departmental proceedings were initiated after his retirement in terms of the provision contained in Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations, hence there was no occasion for the respondents to have withheld the part of the amount of gratuity.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently argued that on the basis of special audit report, it was determined that the petitioner has caused loss of Rs. 2,62,271/-, hence the loss caused to the State Exchequer has been sought to be recovered by withholding the amount equal to the loss, from the gratuity of the petitioner by the Regional Food Controller, Faizabad Division, Faizabad by means of order dated 24.7.2013.

7. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsels appearing for the parties.

8. Admittedly, no departmental proceedings were instituted, neither the same were pending against the petitioner on the date of retirement. It is also not denied that no departmental proceedings, after seeking approval of the competent authority under Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulations, have been initiated against the petitioner.

9. In the counter-affidavit, it has been stated by the respondents that on the basis of liability of a sum of Rs. 2,62,271/-, which has been determined on the basis of audit report, the amount has been ordered to be recovered from the gratuity amount of the petitioner. No other reason has been indicated by the respondents for withholding the amount of gratuity for recovery of the alleged loss caused to the State Exchequer.

10. The U.P. Recruitment Benefit Rules 1961 provides that recovery from the gratuity of retired employee can be made only if the conditions of Regulation 351-A of the Civil Service Regulation are fulfilled. As observed above, in the instant case, there is no material which in any manner suggests that any departmental proceedings were