JUDGMENT : 1. By following the procedure analogous to provisions of Order 47 Rule 8 of the Order of Civil Procedure Code 1908, the learned Counsel for the parties have been reheard on the question as regards entitlement of respondent No.1 to receive amount of gratuity despite the fact that he has been dismissed from service after holding departmental enquiry. 2. On behalf of the petitioner, it was submitted by Shri A. M. Gordey, learned Senior Counsel that a dismissed employee was not entitled to receive gratuity. Reference was made to the provisions of Section 4(1) of the said Act to urge that as respondent No.1 had been dismissed from service, he would not be covered by provisions of Section 4(1)(a) to (c). These clauses contemplate entitlement for gratuity on superannuation, retirement, resignation, death or disablement. Reference was also made to provision of Section 4(6) of the said Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Y.P. Sarabhai Vs. Union Bank of India and another (2006) 5 SCC 377 and especially para 11 thereof. Reliance was also placed on the judgments in Sabarkantha District Central Cooperative Bank vs. Ramanbhai Patel 2011(1) CLR 871, and Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner 2003 (2) LLN 939. It was, therefore, submitted that respondent No.1 was not entitled to receive any amount of gratuity. 3. Shri M. M. Sudame, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 then submitted that respondent No.1 could not be deprived of the amount of gratuity though he had been dismissed from service. He referred to provisions of Section 2(q) of the said Act and urged that dismissal of an employee would amount to “retirement” for the purposes of said Act and, therefore, under provisions of Section 4(1) (b) of the said Act, the respondent No.1 was entitled to receive gratuity. He submitted that there was no order passed directing forfeiture of the amount of gratuity for any damage or loss caused by respondent No.1 to the petitioner. It was not the case that respondent No.1 was guilty of any riotous behaviour. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Garment Cleaning vs. The Workmen, AIR 1962 SC 673 and Jaswant Singh Gill Vs. Bharat Mills Limited and others (2007) 1 SCC 663 . It was not the case that respondent No.1 was guilty of any riotous behaviour. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Garment Cleaning vs. The Workmen, AIR 1962 SC 673 and Jaswant Singh Gill Vs. Bharat Mills Limited and others (2007) 1 SCC 663 . He submitted that the latter judgment arose under the same Rules under which departmental enquiry had been held against respondent No.1. He also referred to judgment of learned Single Judge in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Maruti Ramchandra Mastud 2011 I CLR 743. It was, therefore, submitted that both the Authorities rightly found respondent No.1 entitled for gratuity. 4. I have considered the respective submissions and I have gone through the material placed on record. It is not in dispute that under provisions of the Coal India Executive Conduct (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1978 (for short, the CDA Rules) an enquiry was held against respondent No.1. After said enquiry, a penalty of dismissal under Rule 27(1) of the CDA Rules came to be imposed on 27-1-2009. The appeal filed by respondent No.1 was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority by order dated 21-6-2010. This order of dismissal is the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.3428/2010 and said writ petition has been admitted for final hearing. The respondent No.1 initiated proceedings for receiving amount of gratuity under the said Act and the Controlling Authority by order dated 12-4-2011 held respondent No.1 entitled to receive an amount of Rs.14,34,614/towards gratuity with 10% interest per annum from 27-1-2009 till its realization. This order has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 1-11-2011 by holding that in the disciplinary proceedings neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority have found respondent No.1 disentitled for gratuity. 5. As noted above, the enquiry proceedings were held against respondent No.1 under the CDA Rules. Rule 27 of the CDA Rules provides for major penalties which include reduction to a lower grade, compulsory retirement, recovery from pay or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Company by negligence or breach of orders or trust, removal from service and dismissal. Rule 27 of the CDA Rules provides for major penalties which include reduction to a lower grade, compulsory retirement, recovery from pay or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Company by negligence or breach of orders or trust, removal from service and dismissal. It is, therefore, clear that the Disciplinary Authority is empowered to direct recovery either from the pay or gratuity the whole or the part of any pecuniary loss that is caused to the Company on account of the negligence or breach of orders or trust. In the present case, punishment of dismissal has been imposed on respondent No.1. The question, therefore, is whether in a case where the penalty of recovery from gratuity of any amount of pecuniary loss could have been imposed but instead a penalty of dismissal is imposed, can the amount of gratuity payable under the said Act be withheld. 6. In Jaswant Singh Gill (supra), the very same CDA Rules that were applied in the present case were under consideration. The facts of said case indicate that the employee therein was serving on the post of Chief General Manager and a chargesheet was issued to him on the allegation of shortage of coal. The employer took the stand that the gratuity had been withheld for the purposes of making an adjustment dependent on the disciplinary proceedings. The amount of gratuity was withheld and the Controlling Authority permitted the Disciplinary Authority to proceed with the enquiry. During pendency of the departmental proceedings he was permitted to retire. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter directed forfeiture of his gratuity, but the Controlling Authority held the employee entitled for gratuity on the ground that his services had not been terminated for any misconduct under Section 4(6) of the said Act. This order of the Controlling Authority was maintained by the Appellate Authority. These orders were not interfered with by learned Single Judge of the High Court but the learned Division Bench set aside the orders of the Controlling Authority. The Supreme Court after considering provisions of the CDA Rules held that the provisions of said Act would prevail over the CDA Rules. Rule 27 of CDA Rules provided for recovery from gratuity only to the extent of loss caused which penalty must be imposed on the employee as long as he remains in service. The Supreme Court after considering provisions of the CDA Rules held that the provisions of said Act would prevail over the CDA Rules. Rule 27 of CDA Rules provided for recovery from gratuity only to the extent of loss caused which penalty must be imposed on the employee as long as he remains in service. It was further held that the Disciplinary Authority had not quantified any loss or damage and the conditions laid down in Section 4(6) of the said Act had not been satisfied. It was categorically held that termination of services for any of the clauses enumerated in Section 4(6) of the said Act was imperative. The Supreme Court, therefore, reversed the judgment of the learned Division Bench. It is, thus, clear that for the purposes of forfeiture of gratuity or part thereof under the said Act the contingencies contemplated by Section 4(6) of the said Act would have to be satisfied. 7. In the present case, a penalty of dismissal under Rule 27 of the CDA Rules has been imposed. Admittedly, it was open for the Disciplinary Authority to impose punishment of recovery from the pay or gratuity of respondent No.1 the amount of pecuniary loss alleged to be caused by him. Instead, a punishment of dismissal came to be imposed. The Disciplinary Authority, therefore, having chosen not to impose penalty for recovering any pecuniary loss from the amount of gratuity, it cannot be permitted to deny the amount of gratuity to respondent No.1 only on the ground that respondent No.1 was dismissed from service. It is not in dispute that the contingencies contemplated by Section 4(6)(b) of the said Act are not satisfied in the present case. Thus, considering the penalty of dismissal already imposed on respondent No.1 especially when it was open for the Disciplinary Authority to direct recovery of any loss caused from amount of pay or gratuity, the action of withholding gratuity only on the ground that respondent No.1 was a dismissed employee cannot be sustained. The penalty that could have been imposed on respondent No.1 having not been imposed, the respondent No.1 cannot be permitted to fall back upon the provisions of Section 4(6) of the said Act especially when the termination of service has not been effected on said count. 8. The penalty that could have been imposed on respondent No.1 having not been imposed, the respondent No.1 cannot be permitted to fall back upon the provisions of Section 4(6) of the said Act especially when the termination of service has not been effected on said count. 8. The reliance placed on the decision in Y. P. Sarabhai (supra) is on the basis of the following observations in para 11 of said decision. “11......................................................................... It is settled law that a person who is dismissed from service is entitled to get only the provident fund but no gratuity............................................” The decision in Jaswant Singh Gill arises under the CDA Rules which are also applicable to the facts of the present case and hence, the law as laid down in Jaswant Singh Gill (supra) is being followed. In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (supra), learned Single Judge held that in absence of termination of services of an employee under Section 4(6) of the said Act, the amount of gratuity cannot be withheld. Said decision supports the stand taken by respondent No.1. The decision of Gujarat High Court in Sabarkantha District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts as on being denied various benefits including the amount of gratuity the concerned employee had approached the competent court under industrial law and said proceedings were pending. Said decision, therefore, does not assist the case of the petitioner. Similarly, the decision of the Jharkhand High Court in Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. (supra) is also distinguishable as the services of the employee therein were terminated under the relevant service Rules on the ground of misconduct. 9. The Controlling Authority in its order dated 12-4-2011 has specifically held that the order of dismissal did not contain any direction to withhold the amount of gratuity or as regards non entitlement of respondent No.1 to said amount. The Appellate Authority while confirming said order has also observed that the Chairman, Coal India Limited had not passed any order forfeiting gratuity payable to respondent No.1 and in view of non-applicability of provisions of Section 4(6) (b) of the said Act, the amount of gratuity could not be withheld. Both the Authorities have, therefore, rightly concluded that respondent No.1 was entitled to receive the amount of gratuity. The finding recorded in that regard, therefore, is not liable to be interfered in writ jurisdiction. Both the Authorities have, therefore, rightly concluded that respondent No.1 was entitled to receive the amount of gratuity. The finding recorded in that regard, therefore, is not liable to be interfered in writ jurisdiction. It is, therefore, held that respondent No.1 though dismissed from service after holding the departmental enquiry is entitled in the facts of the present case to receive the amount of gratuity. 10. As regards the question of entitlement to gratuity for an amount exceeding Rs.10,00,000/, by order dated 2-9-2015 the question in that regard has already been referred for consideration by a larger bench.