JUDGMENT : Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred challenging a judgment dated 12th May, 2016 passed by the learned tribunal in O.A. 1317 of 2013. 2. The undisputed facts are that the respondent herein joined his service under Eastern Railway on 31st October, 1974. On the basis of a complaint lodged by the Senior Manager (Printing and Stationery), a criminal case was initiated against him and some other employees being RPF/PF/Post Case No.12 of 2010 dated 21st May, 2010 for charges under Sections 145/146/147 of the Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1989). During pendency of the said criminal case the respondent was allowed to superannuate on 28th February, 2011. No disciplinary proceeding was pending against the respondent prior to or on the date of his superannuation and there was also no allegation of any pecuniary loss against him. Subsequent thereto, a pension payment order was issued by the employer and the respondent was disbursed provisional pension together with CGIS, provident fund and leave salary. However, gratuity, benefits of commutation of pension, composite personal grant and RELHS were withheld. Aggrieved thereby repeated representations were made and ultimately by memoranda dated 12th April, 2011 and 23rd August, 2011, the petitioner no.3 intimated, inter alia, “since a case has been filed against Sri Maiti and summon has already been issued by Ld. CMM/Bank shall Court, it should be treated as judicial proceedings are instituted against him” , and that as per extant rules “final pension along with DCRG and commutation of pension cannot be released in favour of you at present till finalization of the court case”. Challenging such denial of the petitioners to disburse the final pensionary benefits, the respondent preferred an application being O.A. 1317 of 2013 before the learned tribunal. Upon contested hearing the said application was disposed of by a judgment dated 12th May, 2016 directing the petitioners to disburse the withheld settlement dues of the respondent within a period of two months with interest on the arrears at the rate of 8% per annum from the date the dues accrued. 3. The sole issue which arises for consideration is as to whether the learned tribunal has erred in law in directing the petitioners to disburse the final pension along with gratuity and commutation of pension to the respondent during pendency of a criminal proceeding against the respondent. 3. The sole issue which arises for consideration is as to whether the learned tribunal has erred in law in directing the petitioners to disburse the final pension along with gratuity and commutation of pension to the respondent during pendency of a criminal proceeding against the respondent. 4. Mr. Swapan Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that in terms of the provisions of rule 10(1)(c) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the pension rules of 1993) the petitioners are entitled to withhold disbursement of gratuity in the backdrop of the admitted fact that a criminal proceeding is pending against the respondent. Disbursement of full pension is subject to future good conduct of the employee concerned and the employer has every right to withhold the disbursement of final pension along with gratuity and commutation of pension in view of pendency of a criminal proceeding. 5. According to him the definition of the term “employee” under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1972) does not bring within its fold a Central Government employee and that rules 9 and 10 of the said pension rules of 1993, having the blessings of Article 309 of the Constitution of India, would have predominance and in terms of the said rules, particularly rule 10(1)(c), the petitioners have rightly withheld the gratuity amount due to pendency of a criminal proceeding and that the learned tribunal erred in law in directing the petitioners to act contrary to the said pension rules and such infirmity warrants interference of this Court. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon unreported judgments delivered in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs. Joydev Ghatak and in WPCT 188/2015. 6. Per contra, Mr. Dhar, learned advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the right to withhold or withdraw a pension or a part thereof whether permanently or for a specified period stands conferred upon the authority by the provisions of rule 8 of the said pension rules of 1993. Such right can be exercised by the employer only if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or if he is found guilty of grave misconduct. Such right can be exercised by the employer only if the pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or if he is found guilty of grave misconduct. Admittedly no disciplinary proceeding was pending against the respondent prior to or on the date of his superannuation and there was no allegation of any pecuniary loss or of any grave misconduct against him. The respondent has also not been convicted of any serious crime. Due to mere pendency of a criminal proceeding, that too involving an offence which cannot, by the furthest of imagination, be construed to be a “serious crime”, the petitioners cannot withhold the final pension along with gratuity and commutation of pension in exercise of the authority under rule 10(1)(c) of the pension rules. The provisions of rule 10(1)(c) of the pension rules of 1993 cannot be stretched to include a power conferred upon the authorities by the provisions of Rule 8. 7. He further submits that the term “serious crime” has been explained to be inclusive of a crime involving offence under the Official Secrets Act, 1923. The criminal case pending against the respondent involves charges under sections 145, 146 and 147 of the said Act of 1989. Charge under Section 145 relates to a state of drunkenness or nuisance and the maximum punishment for an offence of nuisance in a state of intoxication would invite a penalty of fine of Rs.100/- in case of conviction for the first offence and imprisonment of one month and a fine of Rs.250/- in case of conviction for second or subsequent offence. Charge under Sections 146 relates to obstructing railway servant in duty which if established would invite a penalty of maximum of Rs.1000/- or imprisonment of a term of six months. Charge under Section 147 relates to trespass and refusal to desist from trespass which if established would invite a penalty of maximum of Rs.1000/- or imprisonment of a term of six months. Such offences alleged against the petitioner cannot be construed to be “serious crimes”. 8. He further submits that pension is a property in the hands of an employee who has retired and such right to avail the pensionary benefits cannot be curtailed by the employer without formation of any opinion and without issuing any order upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the employee. In support of his arguments, Mr. 8. He further submits that pension is a property in the hands of an employee who has retired and such right to avail the pensionary benefits cannot be curtailed by the employer without formation of any opinion and without issuing any order upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the employee. In support of his arguments, Mr. Dhar has placed reliance upon the following judgments : a. D.S. Nakara and Others vs. Union of India, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 ; b. D.V. Kapoor vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (1990) 4 SCC 314 ; c. Jarnail Singh vs. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Others, reported in (1993) 1 SCC 47 ; d. Bakshis Singh vs. M/s Darshan Engineering Works and Others, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 9 ; e. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Samiran Ghosh, reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Cal 12486; f. State of Jharkhand and Others vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Others, reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210 ; g. Shankar Singh Yadav vs. State of U.P and 4 Ors, reported in 2015 SCC OnLine All 748; h. An unreported judgment delivered in the case of Shyam Sundar Bhar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 9. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. 10. The term serious crime connotes a crime beyond the ordinary, inviting a more serious major punishment than what may be given in the case of a minor omission. If the crime is grave, the punishment shall have to be major. An act which could be viewed as a “serious crime” may take within its comprehension acts of moral turpitude, corruption or misappropriation, for example. The very nature of offence or misconduct alleged against the respondent for which the proceeding has been initiated and was pending on the date of his retirement, thus, becomes relevant. Withholding of gratuity for pendency of a criminal proceeding pertaining to offences which do not reflect the characteristics of a “serious crime” is not contemplated under the pension rules [see the judgment delivered in the case of Shankar Singh Yadav (supra)]. Withholding of gratuity for pendency of a criminal proceeding pertaining to offences which do not reflect the characteristics of a “serious crime” is not contemplated under the pension rules [see the judgment delivered in the case of Shankar Singh Yadav (supra)]. The learned tribunal, upon weighing the gravity of the offences alleged against the respondent and having regard to the object and spirit of the pension rules and bearing in mind that gratuity is a reward for an employee, who has rendered continuous irreproachable service for his employer, has rightly discounted the argument of the petitioners to the effect that offences alleged against the respondent constitute “serious crimes” warranting denial of gratuity during pendency of the criminal proceeding. There is also no infirmity in the finding that the benefits of commutation of pension, composite personal grant and RELHS could not have been withheld invoking the provisions of rule 10 of the pension rules. 11. The order passed in the case of Joydev Ghatak (supra), as relied upon by the petitioners, does not stand in the way towards grant of the benefits to the respondent since the said benefits have been granted taking into consideration the pension rules. The said matter is also distinguishable on facts inasmuch as in the same the allegation was of illegal gratification and the employer handed over the case to CBI whereas in the instant case the respondent was allowed to retire unconditionally and there was no charge of integrity or pecuniary loss. The petitioner in WPCT 188/2015 did not press the relief for payment of gratuity in the original application before the learned tribunal and as such the order passed in WPCT 188/2015 can have no manner of application in the instant case. 12. Records reveal that before ordering for withholding of the respondent’s gratuity, he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. It is well settled that if a decision of a body or authority affects individual rights or interests, it would be unfair for the body or authority not to have allowed a reasonable opportunity to be heard. 12. Records reveal that before ordering for withholding of the respondent’s gratuity, he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. It is well settled that if a decision of a body or authority affects individual rights or interests, it would be unfair for the body or authority not to have allowed a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Gratuity and the benefits of commutation of pension are not any bounty payable on the sweet will and pleasure of the petitioners and the right of an employee to receive it is a right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution and without issuance of any reasoned order upon due application of mind to the facts involved, the said benefits could not have been withheld. 13. The learned Tribunal, upon dealing with all the factual issues arrived at specific findings and we do not find any error in the judgment impugned. The scope of judicial review is very narrow and limited and such jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the Court dictates. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or any substantial failure of justice or any manifest injustice warranting interference of this Court. 14. For the reasons discussed above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment impugned and the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 15. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 16. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance with the necessary formalities in this regard.