ORDER 1. Admit. 2. As only a short legal question is involved we proceed to dispose of the writ petition finally. 3. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20-1-1983, Annexure No. 1 to the petition, whereby the Chief Conservator of Forests, exercising power under Regulation 351A of the Civil Service Regulations, directed withholding the Petitioner's pension and gratuity after his retirement. The relevant facts are that an enquiry was pending against the Petitioner for four charges as far back as on 29-8-1973. The enquiry officer submitted a report against the Petitioner on 16-12-1974. No action was taken thereon at that time. However the Petitioner was compulsorily retired on 22-9-1975, but that order was quashed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal on 29-4-1980. The Petitioner was reinstated and ultimately on attaining the age of super-annuation he retired on 30-9-1980. We are informed by the learned State Counsel that a writ petition filed by the State Government against the order of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal is still pending in the High Court. That is, however, not material for the purposes of this case. Thereafter on 20-1-1983 the impugned order was passed on the basis of the finding in the aforesaid departmental enquiry. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. A perusal of Regulation 351A of the Civil Service Regulations shows that action thereunder can, no doubt, be taken on the basis of an enquiry which had been initiated prior to the official retirement. The regulation does not say in so many words whether fresh opportunity is to be given to the official before any action is taken against him. However, it is obvious that the Petitioner at the time when he replied to the charges could not have been anticipated that the same reply would be treated as enough for the purposes of action under Regulation 351A that might be initiated much later against him after his retirement. In the instant case no opportunity was given to the Petitioner at all after his retirement. In the instant case no opportunity was given to the Petitioner at all after his retirement. By way of analogy a delinquent official gets, however, opportunity in a departmental enquiry and yet after completion of the enquiry if he is reinstated but action is proposed to be taken for not granting him full salary for the period of his suspension then a fresh opportunity is required to be given according to the general principles of natural justice, as held in M. Gopala Krishna Naidu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1968 SC 240 . Their Lordships observed as follows: Consideration under this rule depending as it does on facts and circumstances in their entirety, passing an order on the basis of factual finding arrived at from such facts and circumstances and such an order resulting in pecuniary loss to the government servant must be held to be an objective rather than a subjective function. The very nature of the function implies the duty to act judicially. In such a case if an opportunity is not afforded, as admittedly it was not done in the present case, the order is liable to be struck down as invalid on the ground that it is done in breach of the principles of natural justice. 6. We are of the opinion that the principle laid down in Gopalkrishna's case (supra) should be applicable to proceedings under Regulation 351A of the Civil Service Regulations as well. 7. Another infirmity in the order is that there is an order for withholding the Petitioner's gratuity as well. Rule 9(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961 lays down that the Government will have the right to effect recoveries from the gratuity or family pension sanctioned in the same circumstances as recoveries can be effected from an ordinary pension under Article 351A of the Civil Service Regulations. In the present case the order passed is not for recovery from the Petitioner of the whole or part of any loss caused by him to the Government as is permissible under Regulation 351A of the Civil Service Regulations but for withholding his gratuity. This is not permissible under Rule 9(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961. 8. Accordingly the impugned order cannot be sustained. This is not permissible under Rule 9(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Retirement Benefits Rules, 1961. 8. Accordingly the impugned order cannot be sustained. It will, however, be open to the competent authority to pass any fresh order after due opportunity to the Petitioner and in accordance with law. 9. In the result the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 20-1-1983, Annexure 1 to the petition, is hereby quashed. The competent authority should either issue orders for payment of the Petitioner's pension and gratuity or issue notice to the Petitioner to show cause under the aforesaid regulation and rule respectively within two months from today.