ORDER : 1. The petitioner has assailed the punishment order dated 27.07.2017 passed by the respondent insofar as it relates to withholding the gratuity payable to the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation interaliaseeking a direction to the respondent – Corporation to pay the gratuity to the petitioner with 10% interest p.a. from 01.09.2017 i.e., one month from the date of retirement of the petitioner. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of the present case are that the petitioner who was working as Accounts Supervisor on the establishment of the respondent – Corporation. In terms of the order dated 27.07.2017 impugned herein, he was imposed with the punishment of reduction in two increments from the basic pay with cumulative effect and further ordered to withhold the gratuity till disposal of the criminal case registered in Cr.No.0077/2016 for certain alleged misconduct said to have been proved. It is the contention of the petitioner that no criminal case is pending against him. After attaining the age of superannuation, the respondent permitted the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 31.07.2017. In view of the observations made in the punishment order, the respondent is withholding the entire gratuity of the petitioner contrary to Section 4[6] of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1872 [‘Act’ for short] and hence seeks for interference of this Court. 3. Learned counsel Sri.L.Shekar appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petition would submit that the gratuity amount can be withheld by the employer only in terms of Section 4[6] of the Act wherein the order of termination is necessary. In the absence of such termination order passed against the petitioner and no criminal proceedings pending against him, the order impugned is perseillegal. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent – Corporation supporting the impugned order would submit that, on the allegation of dereliction of his duty in the Depot 25 during the period May2014 the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. On considering the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority accepting the findings inasmuch as the charges leveled against him being proved, issued the punishment order dated 27.07.2017 impugned herein, which is in conformity with the provisions of the Act. It is submitted that indeed police complaint was filed against Sri.Siddaramegowda and others and admittedly not against this petitioner. 5. On considering the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority accepting the findings inasmuch as the charges leveled against him being proved, issued the punishment order dated 27.07.2017 impugned herein, which is in conformity with the provisions of the Act. It is submitted that indeed police complaint was filed against Sri.Siddaramegowda and others and admittedly not against this petitioner. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is not in dispute that no FIR is registered against the petitioner in the criminal proceedings said to have been pending. Section 4[6] of the Act postulates that gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, willful 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; 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 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. Indispuedly, there is no order of termination passed against the petitioner. It is clear from the aforesaid provisions that the order of termination from service is sine qua non for initiating proceedings of withholding the gratuity in terms of Section 4[6] of the Act. Indisputedly, there being no termination order, Section 4[6] of the Act could not have been invoked by the respondent – Corporation merely on surmises and conjunctures. The gratuity amount which is a vested right of the petitioner cannot be withheld without the authority of law. Section 13 of the Act protects the gratuity payable to the employee. In terms of the said Section 13, no gratuity payable under the Act shall be liable to attachment in execution of any decree or order of any civil, revenue or criminal court. 7. In such circumstances, the punishment order passed by the respondent – Corporation without substantial material on record is wholly perverse and illegal. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. 7. In such circumstances, the punishment order passed by the respondent – Corporation without substantial material on record is wholly perverse and illegal. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. Accordingly, the punishment order passed by the respondent – Corporation stands quashed to the extent of withholding of gratuity payable to the petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner is entitled to the gratuity amount with the applicable rate of interest. The respondent shall disburse the gratuity amount to the petitioner with applicable rate of interest in an expedite manner in any event not later than three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In view of disposal of the writ petition, I.A1/2019 stands disposed of.