ORDER : This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:- “…to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the fourth respondent to pay the amount due and payable to the petitioner towards gratuity, leave encashment and arrears on account of pay revision scale for the period from 01.11.2017 to 30.06.2019 with interest at 12% per annum on the delayed payment, without causing any further delay and to pass such other order or orders…….” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was selected and appointed as Staff Assistant/Supervisor in the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, SPSR Nellore and joined duty on 16.07.2012 and after training he was posted to NDCCB Kota Branch at Kota and worked there from 1.8.2012 to 30.06.2019. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he was not paid terminal benefits. Therefore, he made representations on 6.10.2019 and 20.01.2021 to the 4th respondent seeking to release of his terminal benefits. Then, the 4th respondent informed him that the bank will settle terminal benefits on finalization of the surcharge enquiry. Basing on the vigilance report, the 4th respondent has terminated the petitioner from his service four days before his retirement on superannuation i.e., 26.6.2019, his retirement date is 30.06.2019 and also mentioned that treating the suspension period of four days as loss of pay besides recovery of loss caused to the bank. Basing on the inspection report, the 3rd respondent has initiated surcharge proceedings on 10.06.2020 under Section 600(1) of AP Cooperative Societies Act 1964 against the petitioner and other employees. Challenging the same the petitioner has preferred writ petitions vide WP Nos. 15532 of 20220 and 15541 of 2020 before this Court, which are pending consideration. It is further stated that since the specific exemption is given under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules 1964, the 4th respondent cannot withhold his terminal benefits on the ground that surcharge proceedings are pending, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition and contended that the petitioner was retired from service of the Bank on 30.06.2022 and at the time of his retirement he was under suspension. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondent denying all the allegations made in the petition and contended that the petitioner was retired from service of the Bank on 30.06.2022 and at the time of his retirement he was under suspension. While communicating the retirement intimation, the Bank has informed that the retirement benefits of the incumbent will be released on finalization of enquiries and charges pending if any. But after completion of enquiry, the enquiry officer concluded that the charges leveled against the charged employee is established and therefore the charge is held proved, the act of the employee comes under gross misconduct. Hence, by following the due procedure, the competent authority has issued the proceedings dated 02.03.2020 terminating the petitioner from service and the suspension period will be treated as loss of pay besides recovery of the effected loss caused to the Bank funds of Rs.2,94,37,748/- @ 18% of interest from the date of disbursement of concerned loans. It is also stated that when an employee is terminated from the service he is not entitled to receive the terminal benefits and hence the Bank has not paid the terminal benefits to the petitioner. 4. Heard Smt M. Siva Jyothi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and Mr. Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the averments made in the petition, submits that, the petitioner was retired from service only four days before his superannuation. Basing on the inquiry report, the 3rd respondent has initiated surcharge proceedings under Section 60(1) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act 1964, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders as stated supra. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents while reiterating the averments made in the counter and submits that the petitioner has caused loss to the funds of the Bank to a tune of Rs.2,94,37,748/-. The act of the employee comes under gross misconduct. Therefore, by following due procedure, the competent authority rightly issued proceedings. So the petitioner is not entitled for gratuity and leave encashment. The bank has obtained the properties of the incumbent for recovery of the effected loss to the bank, but the obtained property valuation was not sufficient for recovery of the loss amount. Therefore, by following due procedure, the competent authority rightly issued proceedings. So the petitioner is not entitled for gratuity and leave encashment. The bank has obtained the properties of the incumbent for recovery of the effected loss to the bank, but the obtained property valuation was not sufficient for recovery of the loss amount. So the arrears on account of pay revision were not paid to the petitioner. 7. On hearing this Court observed that, Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, is no doubt a special enactment and the 1st respondent is a creature under the statute. The Order or Decree passed under Section 60 of the Act is executable under Section 70 thereof. Several modes of recovery are provided under Section 70 of the Act Under Section 72 the Registrar or any person authorized by him is deemed to be a Civil Court for the purpose of Article 182 of the First Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act while exercising the powers of executing the decree. The question now is as to whether or not the gratuity is immune from attachment and so also the amount towards encashment of leave. In exercise of the rule making power under Section 130 of the Act, A P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules') have been framed and the relevant rule is 52 relating to the execution of the orders and decrees passed by the Registrar. Rule 52(5)(0) of the Rules exempts all moveables, which are exampled under proviso to Section 60 CPC. [Under Section 50 of CPC, stipends and gratuities allowed to pensioners of the State Government or of a local authority or of any other employer are exempted from attachment or sale in execution of any decree or order As such, this exemption, which is adopted by Rule 52(5)(0) of the Rules comes into play. So far as encashment of leave is concerned, since no specific exemption is provided under the proviso to Section 60 CPC, the same can be a subject matter of attachment. Even before the 1976 amendment of CPC, there were some judgments holding that the benefit of exemption from attachment or sale provided under the proviso to Section 60(1) C.P.C. could not be waived. Even before the 1976 amendment of CPC, there were some judgments holding that the benefit of exemption from attachment or sale provided under the proviso to Section 60(1) C.P.C. could not be waived. But, such question of interpretation is unnecessary as a specific provision - Subsection (1-A) was incorporated after Section 60(1) in C.P.C. by way of amendment in the year 1976, expressly forbidding the waiver of the benefit of exemption provided under proviso to Section 60(1) of C.P.C. In view of what is stated supra, hold that (a) Section 60(1) surcharge proceedings under the Act are not disciplinary proceedings and can be initiated even against a retired employee of the Society. (b) While the gratuity be withheld pending surcharge proceedings. the amount towards encashment of leave can be withheld, (c) The 1st respondent is, therefore, directed to pay the amount payable to the petitioner towards gratuity (excluding the amount to the extent of 1/4th, which was already paid), within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and (d) The 2nd respondent is directed to complete the surcharge proceedings within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Depending upon the outcome of the surcharge proceedings, the amount towards encashment of leave shall be dealt with. It is made clear that if the surcharge proceedings are not completed within the above stipulated time, the amount towards encashment of leave shall also be paid to the petitioner. 8. In a case of Balasa Rama Rao v. General Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Srikakulam, 1995(3) ALT 556 , wherein the learned Judge of this Court noticed that Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code is also made applicable as per Rule 52(5) (o) of the Act, which clearly states that the movable properties exempted from attachment under Section 60 of CPC, shall not be attached under the Cooperative Societies Rules. As per Section 60(g) of CPC, gratuity cannot be attached. 9. On a perusal of the above judgment, this Court is of the opinion that the above Rule squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The rule and judgment clearly state that gratuity cannot be withheld pending surcharge proceedings also. 10. As per Section 60(g) of CPC, gratuity cannot be attached. 9. On a perusal of the above judgment, this Court is of the opinion that the above Rule squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The rule and judgment clearly state that gratuity cannot be withheld pending surcharge proceedings also. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the clear position of law and in view of the judgment of Balasa Rama Rao’s case (cited supra), this Court deems fit to allow the writ petition by giving direction to the respondents. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The 4th respondent is directed to pay the gratuity, leave encashment and arrears on account of pay revision scale for the period from 01.11.2017 to 30.06.2019 within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which, the respondents shall be paid the interest @12% p.a., to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.