JUDGMENT : Nishita Mhatre, J. 1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition preferred by the respondent employee, the appellant bank has filed the present appeal. The respondent No. 3, the employee was appointed in service with the appellant Bank (herein after referred to as the Bank) on 4th July, 1972. He retired from service on 21st January, 2014 after completion of 41 years 6 months and 28 days of service, on attaining the age of superannuation. Criminal proceedings were initiated against the respondent No. 3 and two other employees of the bank on 27th June, 1994 before the Special Court, Alipore, Disciplinary proceedings also commenced against respondent No. 3. The departmental enquiry resulted in a punishment being imposed on respondent No. 3 by an order dated 3rd June, 1999. The punishment of reduction of pay to four stages lower in the time scale of pay with cumulative effect was imposed on the respondent No. 3. The period for which the respondent No. 3 had to suffer the punishment expired on 29th October, 2003. All increments and promotions due to respondent No. 3 were extended to him by the bank after completion of the disciplinary enquiry. On his retirement, as his dues were not paid, the respondent No. 3 submitted a representation on 13th October, 2014 for computation of pension and payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The bank informed him that it was unable to pay his gratuity in view of Regulation 46 of the Oriental Bank of Commerce (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) as judicial proceedings were pending against him. 2. The respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 27th January, 2015 before the Controlling Authority appointed under the aforesaid Act. After considering the material on record, the Controlling Authority allowed the application and directed the bank to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- with simple interest @ 10% per annum in accordance with Section 7(3)(A) of the Act. The Controlling Authority did not accept the argument advanced on behalf of the bank that since judicial proceedings were pending against the employee before the C.B.I. Court, Alipore, his payment of gratuity could either be withheld or forfeited. 3. 10,00,000/- with simple interest @ 10% per annum in accordance with Section 7(3)(A) of the Act. The Controlling Authority did not accept the argument advanced on behalf of the bank that since judicial proceedings were pending against the employee before the C.B.I. Court, Alipore, his payment of gratuity could either be withheld or forfeited. 3. The bank challenged the order before the Appellate Authority appointed under the Act which by its Order dated 30th November, 2015 confirmed the order of the Controlling Authority. 4. Another round of litigation ensued when the bank challenged the order of the Appellate Authority before the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 30409(W) of 2015. The learned Single Judge was not impressed by the argument advanced on behalf of the bank that Regulation 46 of the aforesaid Regulations has a statutory force of law and would therefore override the provisions of the Act. The learned Single Judge confirmed the order of the Appellate Authority. 5. Not being satisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the bank has filed the present appeal. 6. The first submission advanced by Mr. Majumdar, appearing on behalf of the bank was that the bank cannot be liable to pay gratuity when judicial proceedings are pending against the employee. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of V.K. Singla v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. to buttress this argument. The learned Counsel submitted that payment of gratuity can be withheld when a special law like the Regulations which have a statutory force permit the employer to withhold the gratuity if the employee is facing judicial proceedings. The learned Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Rajan Sandhi v. Union of India and Anr., reported in (2010) 10 SCC 338 . 7. Mr. Gupta, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, drew our attention to the judgment in Jaswant Singh Gill v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2007) 1 SCC 663 : (2007) 1 WBLR (SC) 440 and to the judgment in UCO Bank & Ors. v. Nityananda Paul Anr. (MAT 1298 of 2012) decided on 29th September, 2016. The learned Counsel further submitted that the employee has unnecessarily been harassed by the bank and has been denied his gratuity without there being any provision of law for doing so. v. Nityananda Paul Anr. (MAT 1298 of 2012) decided on 29th September, 2016. The learned Counsel further submitted that the employee has unnecessarily been harassed by the bank and has been denied his gratuity without there being any provision of law for doing so. He also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jorsingh Govind Vanjari v. Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon reported in (2017) 2 SCC 12 : (2017) 2 WBLR (SC) 440. 8. In Nityananda (supra) a similar issue arose before us when a nationalized bank had resorted to the provisions of its regulations to deny payment of gratuity to an employee on the ground that the employee had been dismissed and therefore his gratuity could be forfeited. Mr. Majumdar tried to draw a fine line of distinction between the facts in Nityananda's Case and the facts before us by submitting that while in Nityananda (supra) the gratuity was sought to be forfeited, in the present case, the bank was only withholding the gratuity till the judicial proceedings are concluded. We do not find that there is any reason to take a different view from our decision in Nityananda (supra). The facts in Nityananda (supra) were similar to the facts in the present case. In that judgment we have dealt with Regulation 46 of the UCO Bank Officer's Service Regulation, 1979 which is in pari materia with Regulation 46 in the present case. Admittedly, no exemption has been obtained by the bank under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act to make the provisions of the Regulations applicable with regard to payment of gratuity. Section 14 of the Act prohibits the application of any other rules of regulations for denying payment of gratuity when no exemption has been sought for under Section 5 of the Act. Therefore, the distinction sought to be made out by Mr. Majumdar is of no consequence. Once an employee is terminated from service. Section 4 of the Act comes into play and he is entitled to be paid gratuity if he has rendered 5 years continuous service on his (a) superannuation, (b) retirement or resignation, and (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. There is no dispute that the respondent No. 3's services with the bank have ceased on his attaining the age of superannuation. There is no dispute that the respondent No. 3's services with the bank have ceased on his attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore, he must be paid his gratuity. The only provision which enables the employer to forfeit the gratuity is found under Section 4(6) of the Act. However, there is no provision regarding withholding of gratuity. The respondent No. 3 has not been terminated for any willful act of omission or negligence causing damage or loss or destruction of property belonging to the employer. Therefore, the provisions of Section 4(6) do not come to the aid of the bank. The contention of Mr. Majumdar that the bank is entitled to withhold the gratuity is without merit. 9. In Y.K. Singla (supra), a bank employee was denied gratuity on his retirement because he was facing criminal proceedings. He was acquitted later and retiral benefits due to him were released. However, these benefits were paid without any interest and therefore, the employee sought payment of interest from the date he retired as his retiral dues became payable on that date. The Court observed that the claim of interest on delayed payment of gratuity is to be dealt with under Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act and that interest could be denied only if the ingredients in the proviso to the aforesaid section were satisfied. The Supreme Court held that the employee was entitled to payment of interest on account of the delayed payment of gratuity in consonance with Section 7(3A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. This judgment of the Supreme Court, in our opinion does not have any application to the facts before us. The employee in that case had conceded that the Bank's regulations were applicable to him for payment of gratuity whereas in the present; case, there is nothing on record to indicate that the employer i.e. the appellant before us had sought for exemption under Section 5 of the Act. Therefore, in view of Section 14 of the Act, it is only the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act which would be applicable for disbursing gratuity and not the regulations. 10. Therefore, in view of Section 14 of the Act, it is only the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act which would be applicable for disbursing gratuity and not the regulations. 10. In Chairman-Cum-Managing Director Mahanadi Coalfield Limited v. Rabindranath Choubey (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that a statutory right which accrues to an employee for receiving gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot be impaired by reason of a rule which does not have the force of a statute. The Court held that gratuity could not be withheld on retirement of an employee even if departmental proceedings were initiated against him before his retirement and were pending at the time of his retirement. The ratio of this judgment is squarely applicable to the facts before us in the present case. 11. In P. Rajan Sandhi v. Union of India and Anr. (supra) the Supreme Court considered the provisions of the Working Journalists Act, 1955 vis-à-vis. the Payment of Gratuity Act. This judgment has no application to the facts before us. 12. In Jorsingh Govind Vanjari (supra), the Court observed that in order to deny an employee his gratuity, the termination of service must be off account of misconduct involving moral turpitude. In the present case the cessation of the employment is on the employee attaining the age of superannuation. Therefore the employee cannot be denied his gratuity. 13. In Allahabad Bank and Anr. v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association, the Supreme Court held that there was no escape from payment of gratuity under the Act unless an establishment is granted exemption from the applicability of the provisions of the Act by the appropriate government. The Court observed that gratuity being a statutory right could not be withheld or taken away except in accordance with the provisions of the Act under which an exemption can be granted only by the appropriate government under Section 5 of the Act. 14. As mentioned earlier, no exemption has been sought for by the bank from the applicability of the Act in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the Act. The right to receive gratuity is not dependent on the Oriental Batik of Commerce (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 but is founded on the right accruing under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Therefore the bank's contention for denying gratuity to the employee is without merit and unsustainable. 15. The right to receive gratuity is not dependent on the Oriental Batik of Commerce (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 but is founded on the right accruing under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Therefore the bank's contention for denying gratuity to the employee is without merit and unsustainable. 15. We do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge which has confirmed the decision of the Appellate Authority. 16. The Appeal is therefore dismissed. Besides the amount awarded by the Controlling Authority as gratuity and interest, we direct the bank to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/- to respondent No. 3 within four weeks from today. All dues payable in accordance with the order of the Controlling Authority shall be disbursed within four weeks from today. Urgent certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties upon compliance of all formalities. Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. I agree.