JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—Orders passed by the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 directing the petitioner to pay the amount of gratuity of Rs. 1,80,173/- alongwith interest is challenged in the present writ petition. It is stated that the respondent No. 4 had embezzled huge amount and, therefore, the amount of gratuity was not payable. 2. While entertaining the writ petition, this Court called upon the petitioner-employer to place on record the order, whereby, liability for causing financial loss to the company, has been fixed upon the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that no order has been passed by the employer fixing liability of petitioner due to losses caused to the company. No order has more over been passed forfeiting the gratuity of the petitioner. Learned counsel, however, points out that a first information report has been lodged against the contesting Opp. Party and a charge-sheet has also been filed and in such circumstances, the amount of gratuity is not liable to be paid. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, points out that respondent No. 4 has been terminated from service vide order dated 7.12.2013 and even while terminating the services of the respondents, it was not contemplated that any amount payable towards gratuity is being forfeited. Even thereafter, no separate order for forfeiting the gratuity has been passed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 5. Authority constituted under the Payment of Gratuity Act has referred to and relied upon the provisions of Section 4 (6) (a)& (b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, which reads as Under : “(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (i),- (a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused; (b) the gratuity payable to an employee 1[may be wholly or partially forfeited]. (i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part; or (ii) if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment”. 6. 6. Although jurisdiction exists in the employer to forfeit the amount of gratuity payable to employee, but exercise of such power is dependent upon fulfilment of conditions contained under Section 4 (6) (a)& (b) of the Act. Admittedly, no orders have been passed by the employer, holding the petitioner liable for causing loss to the employer nor any order has been passed forfeiting the gratuity on account of riotous or disorderly conduct on part of the employee. Petitioner having not exercised its jurisdiction to proceed against respondent No. 4 cannot be permitted to withhold gratuity payable as per the Act. In such circumstances, orders passed by the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, suffers from no infirmity in the eyes of law, which may require any interference. 7. Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. —————