ORDER By Court, Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents-B.C.C.L. 2. The sole question involved in this writ application is that whether the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act was justified to modify the order of the Controlling Authority, Dhanbad and delete the amount of interest from the amount of gratuity, which was awarded by the Controlling Authority vide its order dated 17th May, 2005 as contained in Annexure-2 and appellate order as contained in Annexure-3. 3. The brief facts are that the petitioner retired from the office of B.C.C.L after serving thirty one years and thereafter moved an application before the Controlling Authority on 8th September, 2004, under the Payment of Gratuity Act (hereinafter referred as to as the Act) claiming gratuity amount and interest thereon. 4. The respondents herein appeared and contested the case and also brought to notice to the controlling authority that the C.B.I., Dhanbad had registered a case being No.R.C.-13A 2003-D against the petitioner on 12th November, 2003 for acquisition of huge assets disproportionate to the known source of income while he was posted at C.M.P.F. as OSD(Pension), Dhanbad and the said offence for which the case has been registered involves moral turpitude and it amounts to misconduct according to the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978, which is applicable to all executives of Coal India Limited. The Controlling Authority after considering the case of the petitioner as well as the employer proceeded to allow his application for claim of gratuity by directing the respondents to pay the total gratuity amount of Rs. 350000.00 (Rupees three lakh fifty thousand only) along with simple interest at the rate of 10@ per annum on the above amount for the period from 01.8.2004 to till the actual date of payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order delivered on 17th May, 2005. 5. The employer BCCL being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Controlling Authority preferred an appeal under the relevant provisions of Section sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The petitioner also appeared and contested the case. 5. The employer BCCL being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Controlling Authority preferred an appeal under the relevant provisions of Section sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The petitioner also appeared and contested the case. The appellate authority upon considering the case of the employer-appellant and the petitioner (herein) took note of the provisions of Section 4(6) of Payment of Gratuity Act, which provides for withholding the gratuity of the employee, which is quoted hereinbelow: Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act : 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 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 by him in the course of his employment 6. After noticing the aforesaid provision the appellate authority also recorded that since services of the employee have not been terminated for any act or the reasons as mentioned in Section 4(6), thus the question of its applicability cannot arise. However, the appellate authority thereafter proceeded to take into account that because of the pendency of C.B.I case registered against him the delay in making the payment of gratuity was not intentional on the part of the employer and as such the employee-petitioner is not entitled to the interest granted by the Controlling Authority. However, the appellate authority upheld the order of the appellate authority so far as the principle amount of gratuity totaling Rs. 350000.00 (Rupees three lakh fifty thousand only) is concerned vide its order dated 26th December, 2005 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application. 7. The petitioner is aggrieved by this part of the order by which the interest has been deleted from the total amount. The petitioner has received the payment of Rs. 350000.00 (Rupees three lakh fifty thousand only) as the principal amount of gratuity. 7. The petitioner is aggrieved by this part of the order by which the interest has been deleted from the total amount. The petitioner has received the payment of Rs. 350000.00 (Rupees three lakh fifty thousand only) as the principal amount of gratuity. According to the petitioner the said payment has been received vide Annexure-6 i.e. on 20th January, 2006. On that day the interest amount that accrued on the principal amount of Rs. 350000.00 (Rupees three lakh fifty thousand only) was Rs. 29,900/- only as per the petitioner. 8. The respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit inter alia supporting the order of the appellate authority and they have stated that there was a C.B.I. case pending against the petitioner. It has further been stated that provision of Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 applies to the petitioner being an Executive of Coal India Limited. 9. However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that there was no departmental proceeding pending against him under the said Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-A of the Counter Affidavit of the respondent, which contains the guidelines/clarifications in respect of payment of such amount where either a criminal case or a departmental proceeding is pending. However, having drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant Annexure-A of the counter affidavit the counsel for the petitioner submits that it supports the case of the petitioner as there was no charge-sheet filed till his date of retirement by the C.B.I. which had only had registered a case against him. As per the clarification, his gratuity amount could not have been withheld by the employer. Reference may also the provision of Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, which is quoted as under: “Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act: Act to override other enactments, etc.- The provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act.” 10. The aforesaid provisions clearly indicats that this Act has effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act. 11. The aforesaid provisions clearly indicats that this Act has effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act. 11. In view of the aforesaid legal position, it is apparent that the appellate authority had no valid reason to delete the amount of interest from the principal amount on the ground of pendency of the C.B.I case against the petitioner while holding that the delay in payment was not intentional on the part of the employer. At this stage, it is also useful to refer to Section 7 sub section (3A) : Section 7 sub section (3A): If the amount of gratuity payable under sub-section (3) is not paid by the employer within the period specified in sub-section (3), the employer shall pay, from the date on which the gratuity becomes payable to the date on which it is paid, simple interest at such rate, not exceeding the rate notified by the Central Government from time to time for repayment of long-term deposits, as that Government may, by notification specify: Provided that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground.] 13. Proviso to the aforesaid sub-section (3A) clearly indicates that no such interest shall be payable if the delay in the payment is due to the fault of the employee and the employer has obtained permission in writing from the controlling authority for the delayed payment on this ground. Obviously, this provision also does not apply to the facts of the instant case. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I find no reason to sustain the finding of the appellate authority so far as the deletion of interest from the principal amount is concerned in its order dated 26th December, 2005. 14. In view of the facts and circumstances and the provisions discussed hereinabove that part of the order of the appellate authority by which the interest has been deleted from the total amount as granted by the controlling authority, is, therefore, quashed. 14. In view of the facts and circumstances and the provisions discussed hereinabove that part of the order of the appellate authority by which the interest has been deleted from the total amount as granted by the controlling authority, is, therefore, quashed. Consequently, the petitioner will be entitled to the interest part of the total amount granted by the controlling authority till the date when the principal amount was paid i.e on 20th January, 2006. 15. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. The said amount of interest should be paid within a period of four weeks by the concerned respondents from the date of receipt of the order.