S. B. SINHA ( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 23. 03. 2000 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in C. W. P. No. 2803 of 1998. ( 2 ) THE respondent was an employee of the appellant herein. Allegedly on the ground that owing to the acts, omissions and commissions on the part of the respondent herein, the appellant suffered losses to the extent of Rs. 60 lacs, a penalty of Rs. 1 lac was imposed on him by an order dated 29. 01. 1998. The said amount was sought to be adjusted from the amount of gratuity payable to him. ( 3 ) THE learned Single Judge having regard to the fact that the amount of gratuity is not adjustable in terms of Section 13 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 directed release of the said amount within a period of 4 weeks from the date of the judgment. ( 4 ) THE said proceeding was initiated purported to be in terms of Regulation 58 of the Food Corporation of india (Staff) Regulations, 1971 ( in short, the said regulations ) wherein it is provided that the disciplinary authority for reasons to be recorded in writing may come to the conclusion that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry in the manner provided in those regulations. The Managing director of the appellant in terms of the said order dated 29. 01. 1998 while awarding a minor punishment of censure directed recovery of a sum of rs. l lac from the respondent herein. ( 5 ) MS. Kiran Suri, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would urge that the learned single Judge has misdirected himself in passing the impugned judgment insofar as he failed to take into consideration that the amount of gratuity is not payable automatically. It is contended that the matter relating to payment of gratuity being circumscribed by the parameters specified in Section 4 of the said Act, it is permissible for an employer to adjust any amount of penalty, which has been imposed upon the employee from the amount of gratuity in terms of sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the said Act. ( 6 ) SECTION 4 (6) of the said Act reads thus :- "4. Payment of gratuity. ( 6 ) SECTION 4 (6) of the said Act reads thus :- "4. Payment of gratuity. (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 any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so cause; (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 by him in the course of his employment. " ( 7 ) A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 29. 01. 1998 would clearly show that as specifically no order has been passed for forfeiture of the amount of penalty and in that view of the matter, unless and until a specific order in terms of sub-section (6) of section 4 of the said Act is passed, no amount can be deducted from the amount of gratuity having regard to the provisions contained in Section 13 of the said act. ( 8 ) FURTHERMORE, in the instant case, the nature of punishment imposed upon the petitioner, in our opinion, would not attract the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the said Act inasmuch as the services of the respondent had not been terminated on the ground of any negligence causing any damage or loss or destruction of property belonging to the employer. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed with costs, which is quantified at Rs. 5,000. 00. The appellant shall also be liable to pay interest to the respondent @ 12% per annum from the date whenever the amount of gratuity became payable till the date of actual payment.