Judgment : LNR, J. 1. The petitioner joined the service of the Irrigation and Command Area Development in the Government of Andhra Pradesh as Junior Engineer. He retired from service on 31.05.2006 as Executive Engineer. Seven months thereafter i.e., on 31.01.2007, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.128, Irrigation & CAD (Ser.VII(V&E-2) Department, framing certain charges against the petitioner. Provisional pension was released to him. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and after conducting a detailed enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner, he submitted a report on 18.08.2010, holding that the charges were not proved. However, the 1st respondent has taken a provisional decision to differ with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, it has issued a Memo, dated 14.07.2011, requiring the petitioner to explain, as to why a different view be not taken on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner claims to have submitted his reply to the same. 2. The petitioner filed O.A.No.4740 of 2011 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, 5th respondent, with a prayer to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to release the retirement benefits with interest. During the pendency of the O.A., the 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.548, Irrigation & CAD (Ser.VII(V&E-2) Department, dated 09.05.2012, dropping the charges. Through its order, dated 05.03.2013, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A., directing that the respondents 1 to 4 shall pay interest on delayed payment from the date of issuance of G.O.Rt.No.548, dated 09.05.2012, in accordance with the Government’s Circular Memo, dated 20.02.2006, that provides for rate of interest and other allied matters. Not satisfied with that, the petitioner has approached this Court. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the respondents 1 to 4, explaining the purport of the relevant provisions of law. 3. Ms. Kranthi K. Vaka, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the right of an employee to receive pension and other retirement benefits, on attaining the age of superannuation, can not be denied, except where disciplinary or judicial proceedings were pending against him, as on the date of his retirement. She contends that no disciplinary or judicial proceedings were pending against the petitioner at the time of his retirement, and the Charge Memo was issued seven months after the retirement. She contends that no disciplinary or judicial proceedings were pending against the petitioner at the time of his retirement, and the Charge Memo was issued seven months after the retirement. She contends that there was no scope for the respondents 1 to 4 to invoke their power to withhold pension or gratuity, under Rule 46 of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short ‘the Pension Rules’). She submits that the view expressed by the Tribunal that the interest has to be paid from the date of dropping the disciplinary proceedings, cannot be sustained in law. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II, on the other hand, submits that provisional pension and other benefits, except the gratuity were released to the petitioner, much before the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, and that the gratuity could not have been paid, as long as the disciplinary proceedings were pending. He further submits that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated under the relevant provisions of law, and that the petitioner cannot insist on payment of all the retirement benefits, even when disciplinary proceedings were pending. 5. Time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the entitlement of an employee to receive pension is right to property and it is only when valid legal basis exists, that the pension and other benefits can be withheld. In the normal course of things, retirement benefits need to be extended to the employee, soon after his retirement. In case any disciplinary proceedings were pending against the employee by the time he retired, what becomes payable is only a provisional pension. The Government would have every right to withhold the other benefits, including gratuity, if the disciplinary proceedings were pending as on the date of retirement. 6. Rule 46 of the Pension Rules deals with payment of retirement gratuity and the circumstances under which interest becomes payable thereon. Sub-Rule 1-A(i) & (ii) reads as under: “1-A – Interest shall be allowed for delayed payment of Retirement Gratuity as prescribed from time to time subject to the following conditions, namely :- (i) the sanction of Govt. in the Administrative Dept. concerned should be obtained with the occurrence of the Finance Dept. for payment of interest in every case, explaining the reasons for the delay in the payment of Gratuity. in the Administrative Dept. concerned should be obtained with the occurrence of the Finance Dept. for payment of interest in every case, explaining the reasons for the delay in the payment of Gratuity. In all cases where interest has to be paid to a retired Government servant under this sub-rule action should be taken against the Officer responsible for the delay in sanctioning the Gratuity. (ii) where disciplinary or judicial proceedings against a Govt. servant are pending on the date of his retirement, provisional pension is authorized under Article 351-B of the A.P. Pension Code, Vol.1/Rule 52 of the A.P.R.P. Rules, 1980. No gratuity is paid in such cases until the conclusion of the proceedings and issue or final orders thereon. The Gratuity, if allowed, to be drawn by the competent authority in conclusion of the proceedings shall be deemed to have fallen due on the date of issue of final orders by the competent authority in such proceedings.” (The remaining portion of the Rule is not relevant for the purpose of this case.) 7. From a perusal of Sub-Rule 1-A(i) & (ii), it becomes clear that the power to withhold the payment of retirement gratuity for the Government would arise, if only disciplinary or judicial proceedings were pending as on the date of retirement of the employee. Though there may be justification, in certain cases, for initiation of proceedings against the employee even after his retirement, that would not constitute the basis to withhold the gratuity. In the instant case, admittedly, no disciplinary proceedings were pending by the time the petitioner retired from service. Therefore, the interest became payable for the delayed payment. 8. It is not as if that the payment of gratuity, or for that matter, the release of other retirement benefits would disable the Government from imposing any punishment. By and large, the nature of punishment, that can be imposed upon a retired employee, on proof of charges, would be in the form of cut in the pension. The deprivation of pension and other benefits to the employee, under the guise of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, naturally needs to be compensated in the form of interest. When the Rules contemplate payment of interest, the respondents 1 to 4 are not at all justified in denying the interest on delayed payment, by citing the disciplinary proceedings, which were initiated after the petitioner retired from service. When the Rules contemplate payment of interest, the respondents 1 to 4 are not at all justified in denying the interest on delayed payment, by citing the disciplinary proceedings, which were initiated after the petitioner retired from service. The interest becomes payable after expiry of three months’ grace period from the date of retirement. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and it is directed that the respondents 1 to 4 shall be under obligation to pay interest on the gratuity from 31.08.2006 till the date of payment @ 6% p.a. If any amount is paid towards interest, the same shall be taken into account. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. The Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand disposed of.