JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Through the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner claims, the, making a mandamus, upon the respondent, for releasing to him, his withheld gratuity. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent, contends with much vigor, that the afore strived mandamus, cannot be granted to the writ petitioner, as criminal proceedings, are pending against him, before the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, contends that since it is apparent, on a reading of the reply, furnished to the writ petition, by the respondent, that the departmental inquiry, as became launched against the writ petitioner, stands concluded, therefore, he contends that the respondents are enjoined to release to him, his withheld gratuity. 4. In making the afore made submission, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, depends, upon the mandate, carried in clause-C of Rule 69, of, the CCS Pension Rules, provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter: "69. Provisional pension where departmental or judicial proceedings may be pending (c): No gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon: Provided that where departmental proceedings have been instituted under Rule 16 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, for imposing any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Rule 11 of the said rules, the payment of gratuity shall be authorized to be paid to the Government servant." He contends that since within the ambit of clause-C of Rule 69 of the CCS Rules, the departmental proceedings, as became launched against the writ petitioner, have been concluded, as is apparent from the reply on affidavit, furnished to the writ petition, by the respondent. Therefore, he contends that the writ petitioner, is entitled for, the, making of a mandamus, upon, the respondent, for his withheld gratuity rather being released to him. However, for the reasons set forth hereinafter, the afore made submission is completely rudderless. The reasons for making the afore conclusion is sparked (i) from the factum that clause-C of Rule 69 of the CCS Pension Rules, makes a contemplation against releasing of any gratuity, as earned by him, during the tenure of his service, until the conclusion or makings of final orders, upon, the departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings. The reasons for making the afore conclusion is sparked (i) from the factum that clause-C of Rule 69 of the CCS Pension Rules, makes a contemplation against releasing of any gratuity, as earned by him, during the tenure of his service, until the conclusion or makings of final orders, upon, the departmental proceedings or judicial proceedings. Obviously, Clause-C, takes within its ambit, the necessity of launching(s) of departmental or judicial proceedings, against the delinquent concerned. Furthermore, the conclusion(s) of both departmental proceedings, and, of judicial proceedings, as launched against the delinquent concerned, is/are, imperative, rather for relieving the rigor of the embargo, cast in clause-C of Rule 69 of the CCS Pension Rules, against the grant of gratuity earned by a public servant. Even though, the proviso to clause-C, does, to a limited and minimal extent relieve the rigor, of the embargo (supra) cast in Clause-C of Rule 69, of the CCS (Pension) Rules, inasmuch the institution(s) of departmental proceedings, against the delinquent concerned, vis- -vis, articles of charges, in sequel whereof, penalty specified in clause (i), (ii) and (iv) of Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, is, contemplated, and, also does hence purvey leverage to the delinquent concerned, to, merely on the launching(s) of departmental proceedings, hence entailing the imposition of afore penalties, rather claim release(es) of the withheld gratuity. Even if, assumingly the writ petitioner, given departmental proceedings being launched against him, vis- -vis, articles of charges, hence entailing the imposition of penalties (supra) upon him, does, fall within the ambit of the afore proviso, whereupon, may be the rigor of clause-C of Rule 69, of, the CCS Pension Rules, becomes relaxed. However, ipso-facto, on the afore fulcrum, he would not be entitled to claim the releases, by his employer, of his earned gratuity, and, as becomes withheld by his employer, as evidently, on a reading of the reply on affidavit, not only departmental proceedings have been launched against him, but also judicial proceedings are launched against him. 5. Consequently, since judicial proceedings are also contemplated in clause-C, to, uptill their termination, through a verdict of honourable acquittal being made by the Court concerned, vis- -vis, the accused, to be constituting a statutory bar against releases to him, of his earned gratuity,hence by his employer. 5. Consequently, since judicial proceedings are also contemplated in clause-C, to, uptill their termination, through a verdict of honourable acquittal being made by the Court concerned, vis- -vis, the accused, to be constituting a statutory bar against releases to him, of his earned gratuity,hence by his employer. Therefore, since the mere pendency of criminal proceedings against the delinquent concerned, is not specifically covered, in the proviso to clause-C of Rule 69 of the CCS Pension Rules, whereas, it only contemplates the launching of departmental proceedings, against the delinquent, hence as a relieving parameter(s), vis-a-vis the embargo, cast in the (supra) CCS Pension Rules, and, thereupon also entitles the delinquent, to claim the espoused relief(s). Therefore, uptill the termination of criminal proceedings, as launched against the accused/delinquent, through a verdict of honourable acquittal, being pronounced in his favour, he cannot claim release of gratuity earned by him, from his employer, as thereupto the statutory embargo, cast in clause-C of Rule 69, of the CCS (Pension )Rules, rather remains intact. 6. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Also, the pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs.