Judgment :- M. Ramachandran, J. Petitioner was an Officer working in the Kerala Small Industries Development Corporation from 1963 onwards. There was allegation of shortage of articles entrusted with him and criminal proceedings had been initiated against him. He was prosecuted before the court of the Enquiry commissioner and special Judge. On 29/4/199 4, he had been acquitted. In the meanwhile, on 31/3/1994, he retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation. This Original Petition has been filed complaining that the gratuity that was payable to him along with festival allowance of Rs. 500/- was withheld and a direction for payment of such dues may be issued. According to the petitioner, the amount of gratuity due was Rs.81,106.73. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent wherein reference is made to the shortage to which petitioner was answerable as a result of stock verification. Even though, it is submitted that as per the judgment of the Special Judge, liberty was granted to the Corporation to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of the shortage , if any, no steps have been taken. As a matter of fact, no action has so far been taken showing that he is answerable to any shortage though it is claimed that as per the Service Rules, it could have been permissible. Of course, according to the petitioner, the allegations were without substance. 3. I had attempted to sponge up materials from the pleadings as to know what is the basis of the claim for gratuity, viz; whether it is as per Service Rules or as per Payment of Gratuity Act. But, there no proper explanation and I presume, in any case, the provisions of the Act might be applicable, as the respondent, though Government of Kerala enterprise is a commercial venture and comes under Section 1(3) of the Act. It could be presumed that as en employee, gratuity is payable to him, and at the rates prescribed. 4. The next question is whether it will be possible and if so permissible to withhold the payment for the reasons attempted to be highlighted. What is contended is that there were vigilance enquiries and therefore, the files were with the court, and no action could be taken thereon. An amount of Rs. 2,71,391/- was found as shortage of articles and therefore, petitioner is to be treated as having caused loss because of negligence/dereliction. What is contended is that there were vigilance enquiries and therefore, the files were with the court, and no action could be taken thereon. An amount of Rs. 2,71,391/- was found as shortage of articles and therefore, petitioner is to be treated as having caused loss because of negligence/dereliction. When the prosecution had failed, if the Corporation was serious prompt further steps ought to have been resorted to, especially since the issue had been kept open. This having not been attempted to, it is difficult to countenance the plea. 5. Gratuity is payable to an employee, on termination of employment, after he has rendered continuous service of not less than five years, on superannuating, and in certain other circumstances. Recover is also permissible in certain cases. I may extract herein below Section 4 (6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act:- (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) ,- (a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, willful omission or negligence causing destruction loss to, or destruction of, property be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused: (b) the gratuity payable to an employee (may be wholly or partially forfeited]. (i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or (ii) if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed in the course of his employment," 6. Before making a plea, the Corporation ought to have borne in mind the circumstances in which forfeiture was permissible. The services should have been terminated for an act or omission or negligence causing loss. On termination , the recovery could also go up to the loss so caused by the delinquent. 7. A more deterrent prescription that even though there was no monetary loss, an employer, nevertheless could deny the whole of gratuity payable is also seen incorporated in the statute. Invocation of his clause was of course on the existence of two prior condition, viz., that there should have been an allegation of an offence involving moral turpitude, and also that the services were terminated on that score. The facts of this case show that these had not preceded. Admittedly, the petitioner was permitted to go on retirement. Invocation of his clause was of course on the existence of two prior condition, viz., that there should have been an allegation of an offence involving moral turpitude, and also that the services were terminated on that score. The facts of this case show that these had not preceded. Admittedly, the petitioner was permitted to go on retirement. It was not a case of termination of service. The final decision ended in an acquittal. There was no charges sheet or independent enquiry or finding at domestic level. The refusal to pay gratuity has therefore to be viewed as an impropriety. 8. Though reference to Part III KSR has been made, it is not explained as to how the provisions were applicable or even possible to be pressed into service. The Central Act, governed the matter evidently. A possible objection might have been that the employee has selected a wrong forum, and he ought to have approached the controlling Authority under the Act. But as the objection has not been taken, and since the matter was pending before this Court for over 5 years, I do not think that the petitioner should be driven over to such proceedings, and especially since the scope of the contentions as we saw earlier, is limited, and now simply stands confined to a computation. The amount claimed also comes within the ceiling limit fixed. Therefore, I hold that the claim of the petitioner is admissible. 9. Sufficient materials have not been however brought so as to establish the claim for festival allowance. As pointed out earlier, the Original Petition has been prepared in a casual manner. The counter affidavit is also of no exception. I hope the hint as above would be sufficient to caution the members of the learned profession to attend to their duties with some earnestness and diligence. This is also a classic case which throws light as to the manner in which a public sector enterprise has failed to deliver goods, and ultimately makes its presence irrelevant in the society. In a case of shortage running a lakhs, which was detected on inspection, nothing worthwhile had happened. 10. I direct the respondent-Corporation to compute and pay gratuity that is due to the petitioner expeditiously. The amount already paid, as per the direction of this court could be deducted. In a case of shortage running a lakhs, which was detected on inspection, nothing worthwhile had happened. 10. I direct the respondent-Corporation to compute and pay gratuity that is due to the petitioner expeditiously. The amount already paid, as per the direction of this court could be deducted. The petitioner will be entitled to interest at 9 percent per annum, for the balance amount payable, and from the date of filing of the Original Petition. I also direct that if the Corporation does not pay the dues within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the petitioner will be entitled to such interest from the day following the date of his retirement. In case of necessity, petitioner will be entitled to approach the Controlling Authority under the Gratuity Act. The Original petition is disposed of as above. No costs.