Sanjay Yadav, J.

1. Shri Arvind K. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Shri T.K. Malik, learned Counsel for respondent.

With consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner calls in question the correctness of order-dated 17.12.2013; whereby, the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'Act of 1972'), dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

3. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was directed against the order-dated 14.5.2013 passed by the Controlling Authority whereby, in exercise of the powers under sub-section (4) of section 7 of Act of 1972, held the respondent entitled to receive gratuity amount along with the interest thereon @ 10% per annum till date of this order.

4. Relevant facts giving rise to controversy, briefly, are that respondent/employee as Manager in the Central Bank of India was subjected to Departmental Inquiry vide charge-sheet dated 22.10.2009 for committing irregularities in disbursement of loan.

5. The departmental enquiry culminated in the order of punishment of compulsory retirement in terms of Regulatio