JUDGMENT Om Prakash, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner who was Assistant State Survey Officer at the time of retirement, seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to make full payment of his pension and gratuity admissible to him under the rules and he further prays that the order, dated 6 April 1988, annexure 3 to the writ petition passed by respondent 3 be not given effect to. From the impugned order, it appears that a chargesheet, dated 28 June 1988, had been served upon the petitioner and an enquiry was made against him. The enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer is pending with the State Government as appears from the impugned order. Pending enquiry report before the State Government, respondent 3 withheld the payment of the pension and gratuity admissible to the petitioner. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that when the enquiry report is not served upon him and when he is not communicated so far that any charge has been established against him, respondent 3 was not justified in withholding the pension and gratuity admissible to him under the rules. Also the counsel for the petitioner argues that under regulation 361A of the Civil Service Regulations relating to pension, only the pension can be withheld if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct or to have caused pecuniary loss to the Government by misconduct or negligence during his service and not gratuity. No statutory provision or rule has been shown by the learned standing counsel for withholding the gratuity. So far as the payment of pension is concerned, I see force in the submission of the petitioner's counsel that unless the petitioner is found guilty of grave misconduct, respondent 3 could not withhold the payment of pension. 3. Admittedly, the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer is pending before the State Government who may approve or disapprove the enquiry report. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been held guilty of any grave misconduct so far. Simply because the enquiry report is submitted to the State Government by the enquiry officer, respondent 3 does not have power to withhold the pension under the aforesaid regulation. 4. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been held guilty of any grave misconduct so far. Simply because the enquiry report is submitted to the State Government by the enquiry officer, respondent 3 does not have power to withhold the pension under the aforesaid regulation. 4. On these facts, the writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 6 April 1988, passed by respondent 3 withholding the payment of pension and gratuity is quashed and the respondents are directed to make the payment of pension and gratuity as admissible to the petitioner under the rules within a month.