JUDGMENT A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P7 and P10 orders passed by the controlling authority and the appellate authority respectively, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 1972 Act). The petitioner bank had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent employee while he was in service and prior to his retirement on superannuation. On his attaining the age of superannuation, he retired from service and, immediately thereafter, approached the bank for payment of his retirement benefits. When he was informed that the retirement benefits due to him would be disbursed only after the completion of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him, he preferred a complaint before the controlling authority under the 1972 Act. This led to the passing of Ext.P7 order whereby the controlling authority found that the petitioner bank could not withhold amounts due to the respondent by way of gratuity as the service conditions applicable to the employees of the bank could not deprive them of their statutory right to receive gratuity amounts. In an appeal preferred by the petitioner bank, against Ext.P7 order, the appellate authority, by Ext.P11 order dismissed the appeal after confirming the findings in Ext.P7 order of the Controlling authority. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has impugned Exts.P7 and P10 orders in the present writ petition before this Court. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent wherein the findings of the authorities, under the 1972 Act, are sought to be justified on the basis of the reasoning contained therein. The respondent would also contend that, even on merits, there was no justification in the petitioner bank initiating disciplinary proceedings against him. 3. I have heard Sri Sadchith P. Kurup, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner bank and Sri P.K. Mohanan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that the issue that arises for consideration in the writ petition is whether the petitioner bank is justified in withholding amounts payable to the petitioner by way of gratuity on his superannuation, for the reason that disciplinary proceedings initiated against him while he was in service, are still continuing. The controlling authority, as well as the appellate authority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act have, through Exts.P7 and P10 orders, taken the view that the petitioner bank cannot withhold amounts due to the respondent employee by way of gratuity in view of the express provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 that state that withholding of gratuity amounts due to an employee can only be in the specified circumstances enumerated in Section 4(6) of the said Act. It is their finding that the benefits envisaged to an employee under the 1972 Act cannot be subject to the provisions of the Rules or Regulations that regulate the service conditions of employees in the petitioner bank. 4. It is relevant to note, in this connection, that the service conditions of employees in the petitioner bank are governed by the provisions of the Union Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979. The said Regulations were framed by the Board of Directors of the petitioner bank, in exercise of the powers conferred on them by Section 19 read with Section 12(2) of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, in consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and after obtaining the previous sanction of the Central Government. The Regulations are, therefore, statutory in nature. Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the said Regulations, reads as under:- 20. TERMINATION OF SERVICE (1).................. (2).................. (3)(i) An Officer against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending shall not leave/ discontinue or resign from his service in the Bank without the prior approval in writing of Competent Authority and any notice or resignation given by such an Officer before or during the disciplinary proceedings shall not take effect unless it is accepted by the Competent Authority. (ii) Disciplinary proceedings shall be deemed to be pending against any employee for the purpose of this regulation if he has been placed under suspension or any notice has been issued to him to show cause why disciplinary proceedings shall not be instituted against him and will be deemed to be pending until final orders are passed by the Competent Authority. (iii) The Officer against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated will cease to be in service on the date of superannuation but the disciplinary proceedings will continue as if he was in service until the proceedings are concluded and final order is passed in respect thereof. (iii) The Officer against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated will cease to be in service on the date of superannuation but the disciplinary proceedings will continue as if he was in service until the proceedings are concluded and final order is passed in respect thereof. The concerned Officer will not receive any pay and/or allowance, after the date of superannuation. He will also not be entitled for the payments of retirement benefits till the proceedings are completed and final order is passed thereon except his own contribution to CPF." It is clear, therefore, that there is a statutory Regulation that enables the petitioner bank to continue to treat the employee, against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated, as continuing in service for the limited purposes of completing the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The said provision also enables the bank to withhold the retirement benefits that are payable to the employee in question till the proceedings are completed and a final order is passed thereon. The issue to be considered is whether the said provision in the Regulations will have the effect of overriding the provisions of the 1972 Act for the purposes of enabling the petitioner bank to withhold the gratuity amounts, otherwise payable to the employee. 5. It is trite that gratuity and pension are not to be treated as bounties that an employee gets at the end of his service tenure. The said payments are due to an employee, as of right, and represent the benefits that he has earned by dint of his long, faithful and unblemished service in the organisation. The benefit that accrues to the employee is in the nature of property and therefore, the right to receive the said benefit is entitled to the protection offered by Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The said right cannot be taken away without the due process of law. In the absence of a statutory provision, therefore, such rights accruing to an employee cannot be taken away by non-statutory rules, regulations or administrative instructions. In the instant case, however, as already noted above, the Regulations are statutory in nature and seek to deem an employee, against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated while he was in service, as continuing in service till such time as the proceedings are completed and a final order is passed thereon. In the instant case, however, as already noted above, the Regulations are statutory in nature and seek to deem an employee, against whom disciplinary proceedings were initiated while he was in service, as continuing in service till such time as the proceedings are completed and a final order is passed thereon. In that view of the matter, there is a postponement of the superannuation of the employee and a consequent postponement of his right to receive his retirement benefits, by virtue of a statutory regulation. As the statutory regulation only postpones the date of superannuation of the respondent employee, this is not a case where the Regulations have the effect of overriding the provisions of the 1972 Act as, even under the said Act, the right of the respondent employee to receive gratuity accrues only on his superannuation. That apart, even if it were to be construed that the postponement of his superannuation was against the scheme of the 1972 Act, the statutory character of the Regulation in question would serve to insulate it from a charge of being violative of the rights conferred to the respondent employee under Article 301 A of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that Exts. P7 and P10 orders, that direct the petitioner bank to pay gratuity and interest to the respondent employee, when the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him have not been completed, cannot be legally sustained. Resultantly, I quash Exts.P7 and P10 orders and allow the writ petition by declaring that the petitioner bank would be liable to pay gratuity amounts due to the petitioner only after completion of the proceedings initiated against him.