ORDER This writ petition is filed for quashing the order dated 12.03.2013 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 54 of 2013(R), whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the petitioner-BSNL to release 50% of gratuity to the applicant/respondent immediately and also to stay the operation of the order of the Tribunal till the final disposal of the case. 2. The respondent stood retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.09.2011 while working as SDE in the office of TDM, Dumka. Before his superannuation, he was charge-sheeted vide Memo dated 14.05.2008 and 22.09.2011, which charge memos are still pending with no final outcome as yet. Apart from the above charges, six criminal cases are also pending in the competent criminal courts. Seeking release of 90% of DCRG and contending that his case is not covered under the provisions of Section 4(6)(a) & (b) of the Gratuity Act, 1972 and that the BSNL cannot withhold his gratuity, the respondent filed Original Application being O.A. No. 54 of 2013 (R) before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Vide interim order dated 12.03.2013, the Tribunal has directed the BSNL to release at least 50% of gratuity to the respondent immediately. Challenging the interim order, the BSNL has preferred this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, in case of the similarly situated employee, the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1 of 2013 (R) (order dated 07.03.2014) held that since the CBI cases and departmental proceedings are pending against the delinquent employee for irregularities, the respondent is justified in withholding the gratuity. In the present case, the respondent is facing six criminal cases and also the departmental proceeding and thus, the Tribunal is not justified in directing release of 50% of the gratuity amount. 4. We have heard Mr. Rajiv Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is not applicable to the respondent. Rather, BSNL framed CDA Rules and consequently, Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules are not applicable and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly directed for release of 50% of gratuity which is permissible under Rule 61of the CDA Rules. 6. It is not disputed that the petitioner has been charge-sheeted vide memo dated 14.05.2008 and 22.09.2011 and the same are pending. 6. It is not disputed that the petitioner has been charge-sheeted vide memo dated 14.05.2008 and 22.09.2011 and the same are pending. Equally, it is not in dispute that the respondent is facing criminal trial in six CBI cases and those criminal cases are still pending. 7. Rule 69 (1) (c) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, clearly envisages that no gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings. In view of the clear stipulation under Rule 69 (1) (c) of CCS (Pension) Rules, we are of the view that the Tribunal was not right in directing the BSNL to release 50% of gratuity. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in “Jarnail Singh Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors.”, reported in (1993) 1 SCC 47 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held that withholding of death-cum-retiral gratuity on the basis of commission of serious irregularities during the service period, is permissible and that withholding of gratuity was justified as the term “pension” includes gratuity. 8. In so far as, the argument of the respondent with respect to Rule 61 of the BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006 is concerned, it is seen that Rule 61 also provides for withholding of payment of gratuity for recovery of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss cause to the company. It further provides that in the event of exoneration of the employee, the amount of gratuity may be paid to the employee keeping in view Section 7 (3) and 7 (3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Reliance of the learned counsel for the respondent on the decision in “Jaswant Singh Gill Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors.” reported in (2007) 1 SCC 663 , is misplaced. The said case is clearly distinguishable on facts. In Jaswant Singh's case, the employee had already superannuated from service and thereafter, the disciplinary authority had imposed punishment whereby the amount of gratuity was forfeited whereas, in the present case, the amount of gratuity has only been withheld. As per Section 69 (1) (c) of CCS (Pension) Rules and Rule 61 of the BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006, the petitioner-BSNL has power to withhold the amount of gratuity during the pendency of the departmental proceeding. 9. As per Section 69 (1) (c) of CCS (Pension) Rules and Rule 61 of the BSNL Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 2006, the petitioner-BSNL has power to withhold the amount of gratuity during the pendency of the departmental proceeding. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 12.03.2013 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 54 of 2013(R) is set aside. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed.