JUDGMENT : SANJAY YADAV, J. 1. Shri Siddharth Seth, learned counsel for petitioner. Heard on admission. Petitioner takes exception to order dated 08.09.2016 passed in Appeal under Section 7(7) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; whereby, the Appellate Authority dismissing the Appeal has affirmed the order dated 26.04.2016 passed by the controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 2. Respondent No. 3, employed as Assistant Manager with the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.12.2012 after rendering 27 years and 7 months of service. Since he was not paid gratuity, an application was filed by him before the controlling Authority for payment of service gratuity in the year 2015. 3. Petitioner contradicted the claim as to entitlement of the employee for gratuity contending inter alia that while in service the employee was under suspension for a period of 5 years 5 months and 29 days, and that, he is subjected to the departmental enquiry in respect of alleged embezzlement while posted at Gadarwara Centre during 22.08.1992 to 30.09.1994. That an FIR is also registered against him. 4. Controlling Authority on a finding that the departmental enquiry initiated against the employee has been stayed by the High Court in writ petition No. 8403/2012 and that he is retired simpliciter on attaining the age of superannuation. That the services of employee is not terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of property belonging to employer held the employee entitled for service gratuity for 27 years 7 months, rounded to 28 years. The controlling Authority further held the employee entitled for interest under Section 3A of 1972 Act @ 10% per annum plus additional interest of Rs. 264.33 per day in case the payment is not made within 30 days. 5. The petitioner takes exception to the impugned order on the ground that the Authority concerned misdirected themselves and have misconstrued the facts and the provisions of 1972 Act. It is urged that even duration of service has been wrongly calculated by adding 5 years, 5 months and 29 days period of suspension towards service. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order and the provisions of 1972 Act, more particularly, sub-section (6) of Section 4, this Court is of considered opinion that the impugned orders are impregnable. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order and the provisions of 1972 Act, more particularly, sub-section (6) of Section 4, this Court is of considered opinion that the impugned orders are impregnable. Section 4 of 1972 Act provides for : "4. Payment of gratuity - (1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years- (a) on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease: Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement: Provided further that in the case of death of the employee, gratuity payable to him shall be paid to his nominee or, if no nomination has been made, to his heirs, and where any such nominees or heirs is a minor, the share of such minor, shall be deposited with the controlling authority who shall invest the same for the benefit of such minor in such bank or other financial institution, as may be prescribed, until such minor attains majority. Explanation - For the purposes of this section, disablement means such disablement as incapacitates an employee for the work which he was capable of performing before the accident or disease resulting in such disablement. (2) For every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months, the employer shall pay gratuity to an employee at the rate of fifteen days' wages based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employee concerned: Provided that in the case of a piece-rated employee, daily wages shall be computed on the average of the total wages received by him for a period of three months immediately preceding the termination of his employment, and, for this purpose, the wages paid for any overtime work shall not be taken into account: Provided further that in the case of an employee who is employed in a seasonal establishment and who is not so employed throughout the year, the employer shall pay the gratuity at the rate of seven days' wages for each season. Explanation.-In the case of a monthly rated employee, the fifteen days' wages shall be calculated by dividing the monthly rate of wages last drawn by him by twenty-six and multiplying the quotient by fifteen. (3) The amount of gratuity payable to an employee shall not exceed one lakh rupees. (4) For the purpose of computing the gratuity payable to an employee who is employed, after his disablement, on reduced wages, his wages for the period preceding his disablement shall be taken to be the wages received by him during that period, and his wages for the period subsequent to his disablement shall be taken to be the wages as so reduced. (5) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of an employee receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1),- (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 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 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." 7. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of Act of 1972 stipulates that Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years, (a) on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. 8. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of Act of 1972 stipulates that Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years, (a) on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease. 8. Sub-section (6) of Section 4 carves out an exception to sub-section (1) stipulating that- "(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), - (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 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 or 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". 9. Thus, except the stipulations contained under sub-Section (6) of Section 4 of 1972 Act, there is no other provisions as would empower the employer to withhold the gratuity. In other words, only when the eventuality which finds mention in subsection (6) of Section 4 of 1972 Act is meted out then only the employer has the authority to forfeit the amount of gratuity and only to the extent of loss or damage caused to the employer. 10. In the case at hand, since the petitioner has miserably failed to establish of holding the employee guilty of causing loss or damage, the conclusion arrived at by the Authorities under the Act of 1972 cannot be faulted with as would warrant any indulgence. 11. Furthermore, as regard to the period of service, the petitioner since fail to commend to any material establishing that the period of suspension is treated as non-duty, the Authority concerned were well within their jurisdiction to take entire service period of 27 years and 7 months rounded to 28 years for service gratuity. Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.