JUDGMENT Hon’ble Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. 1. The writ petition was filed initially for direction upon the respondents to release the amount of terminal benefit including gratuity and leave encashment with interest which might be adjudged by this Court. Difference of salary from 1st January, 1996 to 31st December, 1998 admissible to the petitioner on account of pay revision and difference of salary between 17th August 2002 to 31st August, 2004 admissible to the petitioner on account of his suspension. 2. During pendency of the writ petition, there has been subsequent development as the punishment order was issued on 31st December, 2005. The short fact of the case is as follows : The petitioner at the relevant point of time was Assistant Law Officer of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 12th August, 2002. The said order of suspension might have been passed in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner challenged the said order of suspension before Hon’ble Allahabad High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 50921 of 2003. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 24th November, 2003 with direction to the competent authority to complete the inquiry expeditiously preferably within six months. Thereafter, the first chargesheet was served upon the petitioner on 23rd November, 2002 and the second chargesheet followed on 24th December, 2002. The petitioner replied to the charges and the inquiry proceedings in respect of the first chargesheet was completed in March, 2003. Inspite of completion of enquires, no decision was taken. In the meantime, the petitioner retired from services but all terminal benefits were not released. The reason behind for not releasing may be pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the impugned order of punishment was passed forfeiting the salary which was due and payable to the petitioner otherwise and also the amount of gratuity. There was no order of punishment as regard leave encashment. 3. I think leave encashment should have been released as it is not covered by the order of punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under the relevant Rules, the respondents authority is not empowered either to continue with disciplinary proceedings or impose punishment under service Rules. In any event, Rule provides for some other punitive measure and not to take any action which affects financially. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under the relevant Rules, the respondents authority is not empowered either to continue with disciplinary proceedings or impose punishment under service Rules. In any event, Rule provides for some other punitive measure and not to take any action which affects financially. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not challenged the finding of Inquiry Officer as the disciplinary authority has accepted the report. He, however, fair to say Rule does not envisage to impose the punishment of this nature. He submits that the Apex Court has approved of the concept of imposing punishment to deprive the employee of the benefit of gratuity when the employer suffers loss. Therefore, this portion of forfeiting of gratuity by the impugned order is not totally illegal. 5. I have heard respective contention of the learned counsel for the parties. The question is whether the impugned order of punishment is legally sustainable or not. It is settled position of law that Government Department and office cannot act unless it is expressly empowered or authorised by law. No Rule has been produced before me, and in fact, Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate says that the Rule is silent regarding empowerment to impose punishment forfeiting pecuniary right of employee on retirement. The Supreme Court judgment, in my view, cannot be made applicable automatically in each and every case. The legal principle laid down by the Supreme Court in any judgment will be applicable automatically to the parties to the matter. But in order to apply such principle, the Department has to change the law following Supreme Court Judgment and to circulate amongst all the persons concerned. The litigants to any judgment and legal fraternity know the judgment of superior courts but how the public at large could know the legal principle laid down by the Supreme Court unless the same is published in the news paper for public information. 6. In my view, so long the principle laid down by the Supreme Court is not adopted by the department, this cannot be applied to take action. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the Supreme Court judgment will be helpful in this case. I have already found that there is no legal provision to impose this sort of punishment. The impugned order cannot be sustained. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the Supreme Court judgment will be helpful in this case. I have already found that there is no legal provision to impose this sort of punishment. The impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the same is set aside. 7. The writ petition is allowed. 8. I direct the respondents to release all the benefit which is sought to be taken away by the impugned order. In my view, the inquiry officer has no jurisdiction to recommend punishment and the findings of the inquiry officer need not be examined separately as it has merged with the order of punishment. The disciplinary authority accepted the report of the inquiry officer naturally separate challenge is not required. Thus, terminal benefit must be released within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 9. However, as far as release of salary during the period of suspension is concerned, this shall be released after adjusting substantive allowance already paid. I make it clear that the disciplinary authority if so advised can impose any other punishment other than removal or dismissal from service taking note of the finding with regard to the guilt of the petitioner in the inquiry report. This fresh decision may be taken within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. If decision is not taken, the issue will be closed chapter.