ORDER : K. Manmadha Rao, J. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the following relief: “…..to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of 3rd Respondent in issuing show cause notice dated 09.06.2015 with proposed punishment of warning besides fixing liability to recover the loss of Rs.24,51,500/- caused to the bank together with interest thereon as illegal, irregular, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondent to pay the petitioners retirement benefits like gratuity leave encashment and pension contributed etc., and pass….” 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Paid Secretary in PACS, Gavaravaram, Chodavaram Taluk, Visakhapatnam District. Subsequently, he was absorbed in the DCC Bank Ltd., Visakhapatnam as a Staff Assistant. Later he was promoted as Assistant Manager and thereafter he was promotedas Branch Manager and worked in Visakahapatnam Main branch and completed 31 years of service without any remark. While the matter stood thus, the disciplinary authority has issued the impugned proceedings suspended the petitioner from service when he was worked as Manager in Yelamanchili Branch, Visakhapatam. It is further stated that the then Assistant General Manager, DCC Bank Ltd., lodged a police complaint against the Gold Appraiser of DCC Bank namely L. Prakasa Rao and his family members to the S.H.O. I town Police Station Visakhapatnam. In pursuance of the same, a crime in Crime No.51/2014 was registered against the Gold Appraiser and his family members for the offences U/s. 420 of IPC R/w S.34 of IPC and the Criminal case is pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Visakhapatnam. The petitioner has not involved in the above said crime but the Bank authorities unnecessarily suspended him from service and issued charge memo. Thereafter,the petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges levelled against him and requested the authorities to drop the said charges and to take appropriate action against the Gold Appraiser and his family members and to recover the fake gold loan amount of Rs.24,51,500/- from the said members. After considering explanation, the authority issued reinstatement orders pending enquiry and posted the petitioner as a Manager at Chodavaram Branch, Visakhapatnam. After considering explanation, the authority issued reinstatement orders pending enquiry and posted the petitioner as a Manager at Chodavaram Branch, Visakhapatnam. Basing on report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority has issued show cause notice calling for explanation and the petitioner has submitted his explanation. The petitioner was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The 3rd respondent directed the petitioner to pay the 30% of corpus fund Rs.1,96,846/- on 20.4.2017 but the bank authorities without consent deducted the said amount from petitioner’s retirement benefits and grantedRs.3,500/- as monthly pension. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent, but no action has been taken. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. 4. On verifying the proceeding sheet, on 12.08.2024, this Court held that, on an earlier occasion i.e., on 12.7.2024, Smt.V.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel was directed to take steps to comply with the objections raised in the counter before the Registry. But till date, the objections are not complied with and no counsel is representing the 2nd respondent since long time. In view of the same, the right of the 2nd respondent to file counter is hereby forfeited. 5. Heard Sri S.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Ms.P.Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II and Smt. V. Uma Devi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments made in the petition, submits that, the petitioner was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. It is also stated that a civil suit in O.S No.281/2016 was filed by the bank authorities against the Appraiser and his family members and that the. Bank recovered an amount of Rs.8,83,000/- from the Appraiser and his family members. He further submits that the 3rd respondent issued notice on 21.03.2017 directed the petitioner to pay the 30% corpus fund Rs.1,96,846 on 20.04.2017. But the bank authorities without consent of the petitioner, deducted the said amount from his retiremental benefits, which is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner hails from poor family. After getting pension in the year 2017,thepetitioner is roaming around the office of the 3rdrespondent for his retiral benefits and also repeated representations, but because of pendency of criminal case, the 3rdrespondent did not take any action. The petitioner hails from poor family. After getting pension in the year 2017,thepetitioner is roaming around the office of the 3rdrespondent for his retiral benefits and also repeated representations, but because of pendency of criminal case, the 3rdrespondent did not take any action. Though the petitioner is not committed in any irregularities, negligence in discharging duties, but no action has been taken by the 3rdrespondent authority is highly illegal. Therefore, learned counsel requests this court to pass appropriate orders. 7. To support his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court passed in WP No.13203 of 2011 dated 16.9.2022, wherein it was held that: “…the payment of Gratuity Act was enacted in the year 1972 to provide for a scheme for the payment of gratuity to employees engaged in factories, mines, oilfields, plantations, ports, railway companies, shop or other establishments and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. It is a piece of social welfare legislation and deals with the payment of gratuity which is akind of retiral benefit like pension, provident fund etc. Gratuity in its etymological sense is a gift, especially for services rendered, or return for favours received. The provisions contained in the Act are in the nature of social-security measures to wageearning population in industries, factories and establishments. The main purpose and concept of gratuity is to help the workman after retirement, whether retirement is a result of rules of superannuation or physical disablement or impairment of vital part of the body or on death to the nominee…” 8. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondents opposed for grant of any relief in the present writ petition and prayed to dismiss the same. 9. On perusing the material on record, it is observed that, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2015. The respondents have erroneously issued show cause notice as to why the proposed punishment of warning besides fixing of financial liability of Rs.24,51,500/- against him for sanction of gold loans in violation of the norms to the appraiser and his family members. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking disciplinary authority to withdraw the proceedings vide VLC/SP No.400/2015-16, dated 9.6.2015 and pay all the retirement benefits. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking disciplinary authority to withdraw the proceedings vide VLC/SP No.400/2015-16, dated 9.6.2015 and pay all the retirement benefits. 10.In acase of State of Jharkhand and others versus Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and another, (2013) 12 Supreme Court Cases 210 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: In State of West Bengal Vs. Haresh C. Banerjee and Ors. (2006) 7 SCC 651 , this Court recognized that even when, after the repeal of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31 (1) of the Constitution vide Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 w.e.f. 20th June, 1979, the right to property was no longer remained a fundamental right, it was still a Constitutional right, as provided in Article 300A of the Constitution. Right to receive pension was treated as right to property. Otherwise, challenge in that case was to the vires of Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum— Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 which conferred the right upon the Governor to withhold or withdraw a pension or any part thereof under certain circumstances and the said challenge was repelled by this Court. Fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognized as a right in “property”. 14. Article 300 A of the Constitution of India reads as under: “300A Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law. - No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.” Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced. (ii) In another decision reported in DR Hira Lal versus State of Bihar and others, (2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 346, wherein the Apex Court held that : Summing up it can be said with confidence that pension is not only compensation for loyal service rendered in the past, but pension also has a broader significance, in that it is a measure of socio-economic justice which inheres economic security in the fall of life when physical and mental prowess is ebbing corresponding to aging process and, therefore, one is required to fall back on savings. One such saving in kind is when you give your best in the hey-day of life to your employer, in days of invalidity, economic security by way of periodical payment is assured. The term has been judicially defined as a stated allowance or stipend made in consideration of past service or a surrender of rights or emoluments to one retired from service. Thus the pension payable to a government employee is earned by rendering long and efficient service and therefore can be said to (1983) 1 SCC 305 (1971) Supp. S.C.R. 634 (1976) II LLJ 377 SC be a deferred portion of the compensation or for service rendered. In one sentence one can say that the most practical raison d'etre for pension is the inability to provide for oneself due to old age. One may live and avoid unemployment but not senility and penury if there is nothing to fall back upon. (iii) In another case reported in D.D.Tewari (Dead) Through Legal Representatives versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and Others, (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 894, wherein it was held that: The retiral benefits of the appellant were withheld by the respondents on the alleged ground that some amount was due to the employer. The disciplinary proceedings were not pending against the appellant on the date of his retirement. The disciplinary proceedings were not pending against the appellant on the date of his retirement. Therefore, the appellant approached the High Court seeking for issuance of a direction to the respondents regarding payment of pension and release of the gratuity amount which are retiral benefits with an interest at the rate of 18% on the delayed payments. The learned single Judge has allowed the Writ Petition vide order dated 25.08.2010, after setting aside the action of the respondents in withholding the amount of gratuity and directing the respondents to release the withheld amount of gratuity within three months without awarding interest as claimed by the appellant. 11. So, In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion, declaring the action of the respondents in rejecting the request of the petitioner for release of his retirement benefits, as illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: (i) the respondents concerned are directed to conduct fresh inquiry and conclude the same within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthis order, failing which the departmental enquiry shall stand abated automatically ; and (ii) after conclusion of inquiry, appropriate order be passed within theaforesaid time regarding retiral dues of the petitioner. In case, the petitioner is found entitled for any retiral dues, retiral dues shall be settled within two (02)months from the date of final order is passed under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules. It is needless to mention that, if inquiry stands abated after eight weeks as mentioned above, the petitioner shall get all the consequential benefits, as if instant disciplinary proceeding was never instituted against him. 12. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.