JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kant and N.K. Mehrotra, JJ. Heard Sri Rakesh Nigam learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri P. N. Gupta, for private Respondents. 2. The order passed by the U.P. Public Services Tribunal dated 23rd July, 2001, has been challenged by the State in the present writ petition. 3. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that the Respondent Keshav Ji, who was working as General Manager in U.P. Nirman Nigam, Lucknow, was issued two charge-sheets on 21.1.1994 in respect of charges relating to the years 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1991-92, 1992-93 respectively. At the time of issuance of the aforesaid charge-sheets namely, initiation of proceedings, the Respondent was in service but since the enquiry could not be completed and he reached the age of superannuation on 31.12.1994, necessary sanction was taken by the Government on 22.3.95 under Civil Services Regulation 351A for proceeding with the enquiry even after his retirement. As a result of the aforesaid enquiry on the charges, he was awarded punishment of 10% deduction from the pension. As a consequence, his pension was also deducted. The Respondent, feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 27.8.1997, by means of which the punishment of 10% deduction from the pension was inflicted, preferred a claim petition u/s 4, Tribunals Act, 1976, wherein the contest was put in by the State but the claim petition was allowed by the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal set aside the order of punishment and also ordered for payment of the amount which was deducted and also the interest at the prevalent rate for delay in making payment of the retiral benefits which were not paid. 5. The Tribunal had relied upon the observations made by the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 24.9.1994, which stated that the mistakes committed by the Respondent were of minor nature which has not resulted into any pecuniary loss to the Corporation and that relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and Another, AIR 1987 SC 943 held that since no pecuniary loss has been caused to the Corporation, there was no justification for the authority for inflicting the punishment of 10% deduction from the pension of the Petitioner. On the aforesaid finding, the claim petition was allowed. 6. Brahm Datt Sharma and Another, AIR 1987 SC 943 held that since no pecuniary loss has been caused to the Corporation, there was no justification for the authority for inflicting the punishment of 10% deduction from the pension of the Petitioner. On the aforesaid finding, the claim petition was allowed. 6. Factually, the learned Counsel for the State has drawn our attention to the enquiry report on the basis of which the impugned order of punishment dated 27.8.1997 was passed. Copy of the said enquiry report has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition which was also filed before the Tribunal. This enquiry report deals with four charges: charge No. 1 relates to the concealment of the fact that the Respondent's wife was a partner in the firm known as Reliable Sanitary and Hardware, S-30 Gole Market Mahanagar, Lucknow and that the said fact was also concealed by the Respondent even at the time of P.C.R. review, disclosure of which was the responsibility of the General Manager as provided in para 242 of the Manual ; charge No. 2 was again with respect to the concealment by the Respondent regarding his relative (wife) being the partner in the firm concerned ; charge No. 3 was with respect to the supply order being placed to the aforesaid firm (M/s. Reliable Sanitary and Hardware Mahanagar, Lucknow). Apart from the above three charges, there were number of other sub-charges which also related to the supply order being placed to the aforesaid firm. The Enquiry Officer found that the Respondent was guilty of charge No. 1 as he did not give information regarding the fact that his wife was a partner in the firm known as Reliable Sanitary and Hardware. With regard to charge No. 2, the Enquiry Officer found that on an information being asked about any member of his family being a member of the firm, a misleading information was furnished. Charge No. 3 says that there was no direct evidence that Respondent could be held guilty for putting direct pressure for giving supply orders to Reliable Sanitary and Hardware and therefore, apparently, he cannot be held guilty but since all the orders have been given to the aforesaid Firm, it shows his loose control over the units. 7. This Enquiry Report does not say anywhere that no pecuniary loss has been caused to the Corporation. 7. This Enquiry Report does not say anywhere that no pecuniary loss has been caused to the Corporation. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, however, drew the attention of this Court to the other enquiry report of the same date in which such an observation has been made as has been quoted in the judgment of the Tribunal. The order of deduction of 10% pension is obviously based on the finding given by the Enquiry Officer in respect of the charge relating to the years 1985-86 and 1986-87 and not on the enquiry report against the charges of year 1991-92 and 1992-93. Though the impugned order mentions about both the enquiries but the punishment has been awarded on the basis of the charge for the aforesaid years of 1985-86 and 1986-87. The enquiry report in respect of aforesaid charge for the years 1985-86 and 1986-87 is the report which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition and a mention of which has been made by us in the earlier part of the judgment. 8. The Tribunal thus committed manifest error in basing its finding on the observation made by the Enquiry Officer in his report which he submitted in respect of different charges of the years 1991-92 and 1992-93 on which report no punishment was awarded and ignored the relevant enquiry report for the charges of the years 1985-86 and 1986-87, which formed the basis for passing the punishment order. 9. The order of the Tribunal thus is liable to be quashed only on this ground. 10. In regard to the view of the Tribunal, that since no pecuniary loss has occasioned because of the conduct of his being negligent to the Corporation therefore the punishment of deduction of pension could not have been awarded in view of the provisions of Article 351A is also not a correct interpretation of the aforesaid Article. Articles 351 and 351A read as under: 351. Future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of a pension. The State Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, if the pensioner be convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. The decision of the State Government on any question of withholding or withdrawing the whole or any part of pension under this regulation shall be final and conclusive. 351A. The decision of the State Government on any question of withholding or withdrawing the whole or any part of pension under this regulation shall be final and conclusive. 351A. The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if the pensioner is found in Departmental or Judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct, or to have caused, pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement 11. The aforesaid provision clearly indicates that punishment of withholding the pension either full or in part can be awarded in either of the conditions, namely, that if the Government servant is found in departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct or to have caused pecuniary loss to Government by misconduct or negligence, during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement. The word "or", inserted in between the two clauses on which the punishment can be awarded make a Government servant liable for such a punishment in either of the two conditions viz. if a Government servant is found guilty either in departmental or judicial proceedings of grave misconduct then he can be inflicted the punishment of withholding or withdrawing pension or any part thereof, whether permanently or for a prescribed period and this punishment can also be awarded in case he is found to have caused pecuniary loss to the Government by his misconduct or negligence during his service but the two clauses are not dependent upon each other and operate separately in their own fields, though there may be a case covered by both the contingencies. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and Another, the Apex Court has observed that: ...If the charges are not established during the disciplinary proceedings or if the disciplinary proceedings are quashed it is not permissible to the State Government to direct reduction in the pension on the same allegations, but if the disciplinary proceedings could not be completed and if the charges of serious allegations are established, which may have bearing on the question of rendering efficient and satisfactory service, it would be open to the Government to take proceedings against the Government servant in accordance with rules for the deduction of pension and gratuity. In this view the High Court committed error in holding that the show cause notice was vitiated. ...Article 351A empowers the Governor to withhold or withdraw pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and also to order recovery from pension of the whole or part of the pension for any pecuniary loss caused to the Government if the pensioner is found guilty in departmental or in judicial proceedings for any misconduct or negligence during his service. 12. We, therefore, find that factually as well as legally the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from manifest error and cannot be upheld. The order dated 23.7.2001 passed by the Tribunal is hereby quashed and the order of punishment is upheld. Since at the time of admission of the writ petition itself this Court passed an interim order staying the operation of the order of Tribunal, therefore, it appears that no amount would have been paid to Respondent, but in case any amount has been paid to him in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal, the same shall be refunded to the State within a maximum period of two months or the State while making the payment of arrears can adjust the same. Further since we have upheld the order of punishment, the question of payment of interest does not arise. We, however, direct that the State shall finalize the pension of Respondent by calculating/fixing the same in accordance with law by giving effect to the order of punishment dated 27.8.1997. Further since we have upheld the order of punishment, the question of payment of interest does not arise. We, however, direct that the State shall finalize the pension of Respondent by calculating/fixing the same in accordance with law by giving effect to the order of punishment dated 27.8.1997. The arrear of pension shall also be paid to the Respondent within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and he shall be paid regular pension by the department henceforth.