ORDER Biswanath Rath, J.?This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner praying therein the following reliefs: "The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon'ble Court would be graciously pleased to consider the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit this writ application and issue notice to the Opp. party under Rule NISI, calling to show cause as to why : (i) the order under Annexures-5, 6 & 6/1 withholding the pension and retiral dues shall not be quashed; (ii) the Opp. parties shall not be directed to disburse the pension and other benefits to the petitioner forthwith including all arrear dues with interest; (iii) the Opp. parties shall not be directed to pay the pension of the petitioner at the revised rate regularly within a stipulated period; (iv) Any other relief/reliefs that would deem fit and proper shall not be granted; And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray". Facts as borne from the writ petition are that the petitioner was a Professor in the Department of Computer Science Engineering & Application in the Regional Engineering College, Rourkela and Dean of students affairs of the said institution with effect from 27.6.1997. Considering his good performance, he was allowed to hold such post even after expiry of the term. Adjudging the performance of the petitioner, the petitioner is even made a Member of the Disciplinary Action Committee and sometime he was also appointed by the Principal as the Chairman, Grievance Committee of the College. The petitioner was retired from service on 28.2.2000 on superannuation on attaining the age of sixty years and at this point of time he was issued with a letter No. RECR/Estt./5838 dated 12.08.1999 for submission of clearance certificates. On receipt of the letter, the petitioner submitted all his clearances in time for settlement of retiral dues. At this juncture, the Accounts Officer of the Institution issued a letter on 28.2.2000 with a comment to withhold the gratuity of the petitioner. As per the normal direction, the petitioner's pension was due after completion of one month of superannuation. While the matter stood thus, a letter was issued indicating that the petitioner shall not be eligible to commute a fraction of his provisional pension during pendency of a proceeding instituted against him. As per the normal direction, the petitioner's pension was due after completion of one month of superannuation. While the matter stood thus, a letter was issued indicating that the petitioner shall not be eligible to commute a fraction of his provisional pension during pendency of a proceeding instituted against him. Therefore, while cancelling the sanctioned commuted value of pension vide order dated 26.2.2000, the petitioner was paid a sum of Rs. 4,028.00 (Rupees four thousand twenty eight) only as provisional pension as under Rule 66(1) of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rule, 1992. 2. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner has once again been communicated with an order dated 9.10.2003 as appearing at An-nexure-6/1 communicating him the minutes of the 3rd meeting of the Board of Governors held at Hyatt Regency Hotel, New Delhi on October 9, 2003, In communicating the same, the petitioner was intimated the following : Minutes: "The ORDER of the Chairman on the subject was accepted by the Board. It was resolved that, following the order of the Chairman, Prof. Ashok K. Mohanty, Prof. R.K. Chhotray, Prof. R. Baliarsingh, Prof. B. Majhi and Prof. IM.R. Mohanty are exonerated, while Prof. H.K. Parhi is censured by the Board. It was further resolved that Prof. Parhi's gratuity will be forfeited". By the above order, the petitioner was communicated that the order of the Chairman was accepted by the Board and thereby resolve imposing a penalty of 'censure' against the petitioner and while imposing the penalty of censure, it was further resolved forfeiting the gratuity of the petitioner. It is at this stage, the petitioner came to know about the report against him in connection with a disciplinary proceeding against him and consequent upon submission of the report against the petitioner, the Chairman NIT, Rourkela imposing the punishment as follows: "xxx xxx xxx 'Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, I believe that the alleged incident had taken place as alleged by Mrs. Pati and therefore I hold Prof. H.K. Parhi guilty of the charges. As regards the penalty to be imposed, though the situation deserves one of the major penalties as provided under Rule 6 of "The Regional Engineering College (Rourkela) Discipline, Control and Appeal Rules", Prof. Parhi being no more in service he may be censured." 3. Pati and therefore I hold Prof. H.K. Parhi guilty of the charges. As regards the penalty to be imposed, though the situation deserves one of the major penalties as provided under Rule 6 of "The Regional Engineering College (Rourkela) Discipline, Control and Appeal Rules", Prof. Parhi being no more in service he may be censured." 3. Petitioner filed the writ petition alleging that looking to the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, the Board could not have gone beyond the punishment imposed by the Chairman and, therefore, claimed the punishment order, so far it relates to forfeiture of gratuity, is bad in law. 4. Per contra, the opposite parties filed counter affidavit indicating therein that in view of the findings in the report holding the petitioner guilty, there is no illegality in the impugned order. The impugned order is in conformity of the provisions contained in Service Rule applied against the employees of the establishment and the matter relating to pension is in consonance with the provision contained in Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 and in referring to sub-rule (2) of Rule 66 of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rule and Rule 4 of the Orissa Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rule, 1992, it contended that there is no illegality committed by the authority so far it relates to grant of pension. On the question of forfeiture of gratuity, it is submitted by the opposite parties that the petitioner has been convicted in a judgment passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Panposh in Trial Case No. 187 of 1999 arising out of G.R. Case No. 1449 of 1998. On the plea that the petitioner had a checkered career, it is claimed by the opposite parties that the punishment against the petitioner is appropriate. 5. In filing a rejoinder to the counter, the petitioner submitted that the allegation that the petitioner is a convict in a criminal case is false as he has already been acquitted from the charges by an order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rourkela vide Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2001. Petitioner claimed that the impugned order as well as the action of the opposite parties is in total non-application of mind and in non-consideration of the developments taken place in the meanwhile. Petitioner claimed that the impugned order as well as the action of the opposite parties is in total non-application of mind and in non-consideration of the developments taken place in the meanwhile. The petitioner claimed that in view of punishment order, particularly imposing punishment of censure both the actions of the opposite parties in the matter of withholding the gratuity and also in the matter of improper pension are all illegal. 6. The opposite parties by filing a counter to the rejoinder at the instance of the petitioner submitted that there is no illegality in proceeding with a departmental proceeding on the plea that mere is no prohibition under law to close a departmental proceeding on being acquittal of a person in a criminal case. In the counter, the opposite parties also admitted that the Regional Engineering College is a joint venture undertaking of Central Government and State Government and, therefore, the rules framed by the State Government are also followed by the college authority. In reiterating their stand in the counter, the opposite parties again submitted that the alleged action of the opposite parties is strictly in accordance with law and there need no interference with the same. 7. From the submissions of the parties, it appears that the petitioner was facing two proceedings; one is a criminal proceeding vide Trial Case No. 187 of 1999 arising out of G.R. Case No. 1449 of 1998 where the petitioner was punished to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 4,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. But the said order has been set aside subsequently in an appeal vide Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2001. The second proceeding against the petitioner was a disciplinary proceeding on the allegation of sexual harassment by a co-employee. The materials available on record discloses that the charges against the petitioner was established and consequent upon submission of the report, the Chairman NIT, Rourkela as appearing from Annexure-6 held as follows: "Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, I believe that the alleged incident had taken place as alleged by Mrs. Pati and therefore I hold Prof. H.K. Parhi guilty of the charges. Pati and therefore I hold Prof. H.K. Parhi guilty of the charges. As regards the penalty to be imposed, though the situation deserves one of the major penalties as provided under Rule 6 of "The Regional Engineering College (Rourkela) Discipline, Control and Appeal Rules", Prof. Parhi being no more in service he may be censured." 8. Consequent upon the decision of the Chairman i.e. the Disciplinary authority in case of the petitioner, the matter was placed before the Board of Governors for adopting a resolution on the punishment and as appearing from Annexure-6/1, the Board in their 3rd meeting dated 9.10.2003 resolved in passing an order of 'censure' against the petitioner. But at the same time, it further resolved that the petitioner's gratuity will be forfeited. Looking back to the order passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. the Chairman NTT, Rourkela it is seen that even though the petitioner was into consideration that the petitioner was already retired by that point of time, instead of recommending major penalty, the disciplinary authority imposed an order of punishment of 'censure' only. 9. In view of the recommendation of specific punishment by the disciplinary authority, the Board either should have confirmed the recommendation or in the event it was to defer from the recommendation of the disciplinary authority, then the petitioner would have been provided an opportunity of hearing before imposing any other punishment going away the punishment recommended by the disciplinary authority. This Court finds the impugned order vide Annexure-6/1, so far it relates to forfeiture of the gratuity of the petitioner as bad. 10. This apart, law is well settled that when the Punishing Authority disagrees with the punishment recommended by the Inquiry Authority before proceeding to give contrary finding and imposition of penalty other than, recommended opportunity of hearing to the delinquent is a must. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in deciding such a case held that upon disagreeing with the recommendations, the punishing authority must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. Hon'ble Apex Court in deciding a case of Punjab National Bank and Others Vs. Sh. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in deciding such a case held that upon disagreeing with the recommendations, the punishing authority must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. Hon'ble Apex Court in deciding a case of Punjab National Bank and Others Vs. Sh. Kunj Behari Misra, has even gone to the extent that even in absence of a provision in the regulation to provide an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent in the matter of differing from the recommendations, it is incumbent upon the punishing authority to give notice to the delinquent. In the case at hand, since the punishing authority desired to differ and opted for giving punishment other than the punishment recommended beyond the decision of the punishing authority passed since in absence of opportunity of hearing to the delinquent the impugned order is bound to suffer. 11. During course of argument, there is also no denial by both the parties that imposition of penalty of censure comes under minor penalty. The Disciplined Conduct Rules of the Establishment in part-III deals with 'Discipline'. At Rule 6 it describes the punishment that can be inflicted on the employees. Rule 8 clearly indicates penalties specified in Clause (i) to Clause (v) of Rule 6 comes under minor penalties. Here, it is made clear that Rule 6(h) prescribes penalty of censure. Thus, under no circumstances, the penalty as awarded by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Board in the present case can be held to be a major penalty. Under the circumstances, in interfering with the impugned order vide Annexure-6/1 while confirming the order of punishment passed by the Chairman i.e. disciplinary authority imposing a penalty of 'censure' against the petitioner, this Court sets aside the imposition of punishment so far it related to forfeiture of gratuity. Since the order of punishment of censure is upheld and this being a minor punishment, the petitioner is entitled to all his retiral dues. As the petitioner has already been retired, the pension of the petitioner be computed looking to the observations made hereinabove and the arrears along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum be released in favour of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of the judgment. As the petitioner has already been retired, the pension of the petitioner be computed looking to the observations made hereinabove and the arrears along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum be released in favour of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of the judgment. Petitioner's gratuity illegally withheld be also released along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of entitlement within a period of four months from the date of the judgment. The writ petition succeeds. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Final Result : Allowed