JUDGMENT R. M. Sahai, J. - The only question that survives for consideration in this petition filed for direction to opposite parties to pay pension and gratuity of petitioner who retired as Chief Engineer in January 1984, from Uttar Pradesh Electricity Board is as to whether the order passed by Board directing payment of pension after reduction of 50 per cent from it under Article 470 of Civil Service Regulations is well founded in law. 2. Prior to adverting to the findings recorded by Board it appears necessary to narrate facts in brief which are not much in dispute. During 11 September 1981 to 31 July 1983, the petitioner held the charge of General Manager, Obra Hydel and Thermal Project. On certain complaints received against him the Government initiated vigilance enquiry which submitted its report after his retirement. It, however, recommended that suitable reduction in pension may be made in accordance with the provisions of Article 470(6) Civil Service Regulations as his services were not satisfactory. This recommendation along with the report was forwarded by Government in September 1984, to the Board with advice to make suitable reduction from the pension. The Government further pointed that action may be taken against petitioner in view of general instructions contained in Government order, dated 26 June 1984. The matter was examined by Secretary of the Board who after taking opinion of its law officer and assistant law officer submitted the papers to Board in May 1985, for imposing punishment of censure or warning only. It may be worthwhile to extract from this report. " In short Sri Mathura Rai has been held responsible by the State vigilance for entrusting higher jobs to the engineer officers. The Board did not consider any action against him and he was only advised that the arrangement made by him may be done away with. Therefore, there appears to be no justification for taking action against him in this regard particularly in the background that no mala fide intention has been attributed to him in the vigilance report. The responsibility in giving the tractor trolly registered in the name of his wife to the wife of contractor on hire also does not devolve on him. Papers in this regard were signed by his son who was not dependent upon him and was employed in the Oriental and General Insurance Company as Inspector. The responsibility in giving the tractor trolly registered in the name of his wife to the wife of contractor on hire also does not devolve on him. Papers in this regard were signed by his son who was not dependent upon him and was employed in the Oriental and General Insurance Company as Inspector. The violation of the Government Servant Conduct Rules in the matter of purchase of landed property and motor car, however, devolve on him but in respect of these transactions the report of the State vigilance does not contain anything indicating that there was any intention on the part of Sri Rai to make the black money white. For violation of Government Servants Conduct Rules relating to sale and purchase of property generally the punishment awarded to the defaulting officers/officials is censure entry or a warning but it does not justify a reduction in pension as no pecuniary loss is caused to the Board. As regards the instructions that punishment so suggested by the vigilance should be awarded to the delinquent officers/officials by the Board, invariably, clarification has been requested for from the Government as to under what rules the Board are bound to punish their employees on the suggestions of the vigilance. The reply from the Government is still awaited. The occasion for seeking clarification arose from the fact that it is the appointing authority or the authority superior to it who is empowered to inflict the major punishment upon the employee in accordance with Article 311 of the Constitution. Minor punishment can be awarded by subordinate authorities as it is evident from rule 53 of the Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. The Chairman is the appointing authority of all the officers upto the rank of S. E. and the Board, are, therefore, to take independent decision in regard to the punishments to the officers/officials. The Government can only issue directives on matters of policy in accordance with S 78A(1) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948, and not on punishments to the employee." In June 1983 the petitioner was confirmed with effect from April 1983. The Government it appears did not agree with secretary's report to award punishment of censure. Consequently the Joint Secretary of Board in July 1985 called for explanation of petitioner and required him to clarify all those aspects on which vigilance had submitted its report against him. The Government it appears did not agree with secretary's report to award punishment of censure. Consequently the Joint Secretary of Board in July 1985 called for explanation of petitioner and required him to clarify all those aspects on which vigilance had submitted its report against him. To it the reply was filed in same month. Since nothing happened after July 1985 the petitioner filed this petition in December 1985 in which an interim mandamus was issued on 2 February 1987 when no counter-affidavit was filed either to show cause or pay pension and gratuity. It resulted in payment of gratuity and substantial part of pension. A counter-affidavit was also filed. It was stated that matter was pending consideration. The Board accepted recommendation of the vigilance and directed reduction of pension by 5 per cent. It was passed by a single member instead of all the members who constituted the Board. Realising infirmity in the order it was recalled and impugned order was passed on 14 August 1987. The Board found : "... On receipt of his reply, dated 17 July 1985, to the explanation the matter has been examined and carefully considered by the Board and it has been found that the action of Sri Mathura Rai by not withdrawing his own orders making irregular ad hoc promotions despite being advised by the Board, amounts to indiscipline. His conduct has not been found in accordance with rule 3(1) of the Government Servants Conduct Rules as 93 contracts out of 119 in 1981-82 were given by the various officers of Obra Project working under him to a single contractor Sri Prakash Giri who had hired the tractor trolly registered in name of his wife, father and brother. Further he has been found guilty of violation of rule 24(1) of the Government Servants Conduct Rules in the purchase of land cited against item (IV) in Para 1 above as also violation for rule 24(1) of Government Servant Conduct Rules in the purchase of the motor car from his son in October 1982 without obtaining permission of the Board at the proper time. For the above irregularities on his part of the Board are pleased the award of the following punishment : " Final pension of Sri Mathura Rai who has retired from the services the Board shall be sanctioned after making a reduction of 5 per cent therein." 3. For the above irregularities on his part of the Board are pleased the award of the following punishment : " Final pension of Sri Mathura Rai who has retired from the services the Board shall be sanctioned after making a reduction of 5 per cent therein." 3. Since this reduction has been directed to be made in exercise of power under Articles 470(a) and 470(6) of Civil Service Regulations it is extracted below : " 470(a). The full pension admissible under the rules is not given as a matter of course, or unless the service rendered has been really approved. (b) If the service has not been thoroughly satisfactory, the authority sanctioning the pension should make such reduction in the amount as it thinks proper. Its scope came up for consideration before Hon'ble Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Brahm Datt Sharma and another [1987-I L. L. N. 768]. It was held after review of various decisions that the power to reduce pension vested in State Government. It was reiterated in State of Maharashtra v. M. H. Mazumdar [1988-I L. L. L. 886]. What stands out from these decisions of Hon'ble Court is that though pension is a valuable right which vested in the employee, the appointing authority has power to reduce in appropriate cases. But if the exercise of power is arbitrary, it is amenable to be interfered with as was done in latter case as reduction by 50 per cent appeared to be unreasonable. 4. The appointing authority, therefore, had the power to reduce the pension if the conditions mentioned in the article were satisfied. The scope of inquiry consequently is reduced if the exercise of power is vitiated either because the requirements which could result in reduction of pension were nonexistent or on facts found the article did not apply as a matter of law. For properly appreciating it is necessary to comprehend the concept of pension itself. The scope of inquiry consequently is reduced if the exercise of power is vitiated either because the requirements which could result in reduction of pension were nonexistent or on facts found the article did not apply as a matter of law. For properly appreciating it is necessary to comprehend the concept of pension itself. In D. S. Nakara and others v. Union of India [1983-1 L. L. N. 289], the Hon'ble Court observed in Para 20, at page 298 : " The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty, gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad v. Slate of Bihar [A.I.R. 1971 S. C. 1409], wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion ..." The outdated concept of pension being a charity or gift by employer to its employee w;as eroded under weight of enlightened socioeconomic approach. If this be the true nature of pension then the interpretative process should be applied liberally to the changing spectrum on that, " social welfare measure rendering socioeconomic justice to those who in the hey day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on the assurance that in the old-age they would not be left in lurch," May not be rendered inane. 5. Article 470 is an echo of the feudal days when the employer kept its employee under constant threat of not only harming him if he went against the dictates or raised his head, while in service but even, after retirement. The use of word "really" before the word, approved, must have been a nightmare for employees empowering the employer to release or withhold the pension in unbridled exercise of discretion. Has it any meaning. The first part of Article 470(a) has in fact lost all its significance. It has been rendered otiose. The use of word "really" before the word, approved, must have been a nightmare for employees empowering the employer to release or withhold the pension in unbridled exercise of discretion. Has it any meaning. The first part of Article 470(a) has in fact lost all its significance. It has been rendered otiose. If the right to receive pension is valuable right which vests in a Government servant and its denial can be assailed under Article 14 then this expression should be deemed as dead and lifeless. May be the latter part be still surviving but to what extent. The clue is provided by the expression that the expression that the service should be approved. The word "approved" according to Webster Dictionary means, certification as to acceptability. 6. In service law approval cannot have a rigid meaning. One of the ways to find out approval of service rendered may be furnished by character roll. For instance an employee with no adverse entry in his record can claim that his services rendered stand approved. Similarly, an employee with an adverse entry expunged later on promoted or confirmed can claim that earlier blemishes stand washed out due to subsequent events and his services for purposes of award of full pension may be deemed to be approved. Similarly, if a vigilance inquiry imitated against employee is concluded after his retirement and yet he is confirmed after submission of the report adverse to him from back date for a period for which the inquiry was held his services should be deemed to be approved. Otherwise the two limbs shall not be working in cohesion. If confirmation results in diluting earlier entries and entitles a person to move further on promotional ladder then it certainly negatives the vigilance report which loses all its weight and substance. And that is what exactly happened in case of petitioner. The vigilance report was submitted in August 1984 whereas petitioner was confirmed in 1985. The effect of confirmation in law was that services of petitioner stood approved. His pension, therefore, could not be reduced. 7. Action has been taken against petitioner 'under Cl. (6). In case where service rendered is approved and the employee becomes entitled ta full pension it is doubtful if it can be reduced under this clause. Normally, this clause can apply only in a case where Cl. (a) apply. His pension, therefore, could not be reduced. 7. Action has been taken against petitioner 'under Cl. (6). In case where service rendered is approved and the employee becomes entitled ta full pension it is doubtful if it can be reduced under this clause. Normally, this clause can apply only in a case where Cl. (a) apply. If the services stand approved the question of services not being satisfactory may not arise. But assuming the two clauses to be disjunctive how the expression, "has not been thoroughly satisfactory" should be understood ? Here again it may be emphasised that it should be construed in the changing horizon of pensionary concept in a restricted rather than in a wider sense. Reduction of pension should be exception rather than the rule. It should not be interpreted so as to clothe the Government with powers to reduce the pension on slightest pretext. To put it differently an employee should be paid his full pension unless something is so glaring or thundering that there is no option but to reduce his pension and affect his livelihood. In this background the finding of the Board may be examined. What stares immediately is that the pension has been reduced for irregularities found in the order. Can the fight of an employee to get full pension be curtailed or effected for irregularities during his service ? Is the expression "not satisfactory" resulting in reduction of pension to be so lightly understood. The answer has to be in negative. Charges levelled against petitioner were promoting Assistant Engineers to the post of Executive Engineer and Executive Engineers to Superintending Engineer beyond his competence and against order of Board, giving of tractor trolly registered in name of petitioner's father on hire by his son to wife of a contractor, giving of labour contract to unregistered contractors and purchasing land and car without obtaining or prior in permission of Board at the proper time, Finding of Board has already been extracted. Needless to say that the Board failed in its obligation to record finding on these aspects after examining material on record. It was dealing with serious matter. Needless to say that the Board failed in its obligation to record finding on these aspects after examining material on record. It was dealing with serious matter. The least that was expected of it was to apply its mind to explanation given by petitioner and not to abdicate its reason, as appears to be, by acting upon the report of vigilance by observing that it was satisfied that petitioner did not act properly. Normally this Court is not expected to sit upon judgment on the finding recorded by an authority which is empowered to appraise evidence and record its finding but where valuable rights of a person is effected it becomes duty of the Court to scrutinise the finding recorded by subordinate authority was not arbitrary. Therefore, without appraising the evidence but to find out whether the order can be maintained it may be mentioned that in respect of first charge that ad hoc promotions were made irregularly the Board did not reject the explanation of petitioner that he had appointed or promoted persons in accordance with seniority in the interest of project taking only those persons who were qualified to do the job. The Board has not found anywhere that when petitioner sought guidance from the Board to furnish the names of those persons who were qualified and who could be appointed then the Board kept mum. The finding in the circumstances that the promotions were made contrary to the order did not render the conduct or service of petitioner as unsatisfactory. Similarly the purchase of land in name of wife or motor car, etc., was done with the permission of the Board although the letter was sent later on. May be it was not strictly in accordance with rules but it did not reflect upon the services of petitioner. Nor giving of contract to one contractor by persons who had been promoted by petitioner could render his services unsatisfactory. In any case these aspects could have been taken into account while confirming him in 1985. The vigilance enquiry completed after retirement of petitioner may not have furnished material for taking disciplinary proceeding against him since he had retired but it was certainly material on which the confirmation of petitioner could have been withheld. In any case these aspects could have been taken into account while confirming him in 1985. The vigilance enquiry completed after retirement of petitioner may not have furnished material for taking disciplinary proceeding against him since he had retired but it was certainly material on which the confirmation of petitioner could have been withheld. But once he was confirmed it should be deemed that he was exonerated of all these flaws which were mere irregularity than illegality, and, therefore, it could not have furnished material on which such a serious action under regulation 470(b) could have been taken. 8. Gratuity was withheld till mandamus was issued by this Court for no reason as proceedings were only for reduction of pension. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to interest on delayed payment. Even the order of 1984 cannot help opposite parties as in vigilance report which led to these proceedings did not establish any financial loss to Government and it had only recommended for reduction of pension. Although the recommendation was not binding but in absence of any justification the delay in payment of gratuity cannot be appreciated. On the ratio laid down in Goa Sampling Employees' Association v. General Superintendence Company of India (Private), Ltd., and others [1985 - I. L. L. N. 237], the petitioner is entitled to 12 per cent interest on it. 9. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order, dated 14 August 1987, passed by Board is quashed. The opposite parties are directed to release full pension of petitioner. They shall further pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent on it and on gratuity from the date it was payable to the date it was paid. The payments shall be made within six months. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs.