JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. The petitioner challenges an order of 30 March 2019 pursuant to which a sum of Rs. 15,48,890/- representing the gratuity payable in respect of the services rendered by her late husband had been retained and withheld. The following essential facts may be noticed for the purposes of disposal of the instant writ petition.

3. The husband of the petitioner admittedly died while serving under the respondents on 22 September 2018. Subsequent to his untimely death, the respondents issued a show cause notice of 03 December 2018 calling upon the petitioner here to show cause why the aforesaid amount held under the head of gratuity be not recovered. According to the respondents, during the last posting of her husband at a particular warehouse, important records were found to be missing. The respondents asserted that those vital records were not handed over by her husband and therefore, action was liable to be taken against him. They additionally alleged that a stock of 407 bags of rice could not be accounted for. It was essentially asserted that the actions of the employee resulted in the State suffering a loss of Rs. 5,41,946.80/-. The petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid notice and asserted that the loss as alleged could not be attributed to any act of misconduct of her husband and that in any case the adjustment of loss of Rs. 5,41,946.80/- from the gratuity which was payable was wholly illegal.

4. By a detailed order passed on this petition on 27 May 2021 a learned Judge, as an interim measure provided that out of the entire amount payable towards gratuity a sum of at least Rs. 10,06,943.20 may be released. This direction appears to have been issued to safeguard and balance the interests of respective parties and enabling the respondents to retain gratuity only to the extent of the loss allegedly suffered by them. In compliance with the aforesaid interim direction issued by the Court, a sum of Rs.10,02,893/- was thereafter released in favour of the petitioner on 16 June 2021. That only leaves the Court to deal with the issue of retention of the amount equivalent to the alleged loss caused to the respondents.

5. Assailing the aforesaid action, learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly placed reliance upon the provisions made in Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and contends that the gratuity as payable could not have been forfeited by the respondents since the services of the husband of the petitioner had neither been terminated for an act which may have amounted to a misconduct nor for an offence involving moral turpitude. It was further submitted that admittedly the services of the petitioner's husband had also not been brought to an end for any act or omission or any alleged damage or loss caused to the respondents. The aforesaid submissions were essentially advanced since the respondents did not initiate any proceedings or pass any orders of punishment during the lifetime of her husband. Regard may be had to the fact that upon a bare reading of Section 4(6) of the 1972 Act, it is evident that in the absence of an order of termination having been made against a government servant, no part of gratuity could have been retained or forfeited by the respondents.

6. However, for the purposes of adjudging the correctness of the submission as noted above, it would be relevant to note that so far as retention of gratuity is concerned, it would have to be evaluated not just on the strength of the provisions made in the 1972 Act but also with reference to the various provisions as made in Civil Service Regulations as applicable in the State of U.P. This would manifest from the discussion that follows.

7. Regulation 351-A empowers the respondents to withdraw or withhold pension, or any part of it, permanently or for a specified period as also the right to order recovery from pension the whole or any part o