ORDER : 1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by the order dated 12th May, 2022, whereby petitioner’s claim for release of gratuity and other retiral dues on his superannuation on 31st July, 2020 was dismissed. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”) has not correctly appreciated the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short “the Act of 1972”). It is contended that gratuity cannot be withheld as conviction of the petitioner was stayed by Division Bench of this Court. 3. It is also contended that conviction under Section 304B IPC cannot be treated as a grave misconduct, as it has nothing to do with the official duties of the petitioner. 4. It is further contended that as per Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pensions) Rule, 1972 (for short “the Rules of 1972”), pension and gratuity can be withheld only if pecuniary loss is caused to the Government. 5. It is contended that in the present case, there is no loss caused to the Government. The petitioner has put in 31 years of unblemished service and there was no charge-sheet ever issued to him. 6. It is contended that the petitioner was not charge-sheeted, however, he was subsequently added as an accused and convicted & his conviction and sentence has been suspended and the petitioner is facing hardship as he has not been paid gratuity amount and full pension. 7. It is also argued that as per Explanation (b) of Rule 8(5) of Rules of 1972, the expression ‘grave misconduct’ includes the communication or disclosure of any secret official code or password or any sketch, plan, model, article, note, document or information, such as is mentioned in Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 so as to prejudicially affect the interests of the general public or the security of the State. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of H.R. Choudhary Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur & Ors; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12437/2012 decided on 27th January, 2017 as well as on the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Mahesh Chandra Soni Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur & Ors; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12437/2012 decided on 27th January, 2017 as well as on the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Mahesh Chandra Soni Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14891/2023, decided on 06th March, 2024. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that ‘misconduct’ and ‘grave misconduct’ are not defined in the Rules of 1972 and therefore, the definition referred in the explanation, as provided in Rule 8(5) of the Rules of 1972 has to be taken note of in deciding as to whether the President can withhold the gratuity on account of grave misconduct. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the petition. It is contended that learned Tribunal has properly dealt with the arguments of the petitioner and has come to the conclusion that conviction for offence under Section 304B IPC is a grave misconduct and the President has a right to withhold the gratuity under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1972. 11. It is also contended that as per Rule 69(1)(C) of the Rules of 1972, no gratuity is payable to the government servant until the conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon. It is further contended that even if the conviction order has been stayed by the High Court, the judicial proceedings challenging the conviction and sentence, are still pending before the High Court and therefore, the gratuity can be withheld by the Government. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Manish Goel Vs. Rohini Goel; AIR 2010 SC 1099 . It is contended that demand of dowry has been included as a misconduct under Rule 13-A of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (for short “the Conduct Rules”) and dowry death is an offence where the deceased is subjected to cruelty and demand of dowry and thus is a graver offence than demand of dowry and since grave misconduct is not defined, causing dowry death will tantamount to the grave misconduct. 13. It is further contended that in the cases of misconduct even on the basis of conviction, a person can be terminated. 13. It is further contended that in the cases of misconduct even on the basis of conviction, a person can be terminated. Though in the present case, there is no termination but withholding pension, the conviction under Section 304B IPC has to be treated as grave misconduct authorising the President to withhold pension under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1972. 14. We have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the order passed by learned Tribunal. 15. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment with fine for an offence under Section 304B IPC. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner has been stayed by this Court but the appeal against conviction and sentence is still pending before this Court. 16. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Sub-section (6)(a) of Section 4 of the Act of 1972, the gratuity of an employee can only be forfeited if his services have been terminated and can also be partially forfeited for the reasons assigned in Sub-section (6)(a) of Section 4 of the Act of 1972. 17. The contention that the Act of 1972 does not provide for withholding of gratuity cannot be accepted for the very reason that right of President to withhold or withdraw the gratuity is independent of Act of 1972 and authorises the President to withhold the gratuity or pension in case an employee is found guilty of grave misconduct in any departmental or judicial proceedings. The Act of 1972 is silent on withholding of gratuity and therefore, the Rules of 1972, which authorises the President to withhold the gratuity will have to be given effect notwithstanding the Act of 1972. 18. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that gratuity or pension can be withheld only if pecuniary loss is caused to the Government cannot be accepted for the very reason that Rule 9 of the Rules of 1972 provides for recovery of pension or gratuity of whole or part for any pecuniary loss, caused to the Government. This would apply only if the pension or gratuity is paid and pecuniary loss is caused to the Government. In that case, the President can also recover the gratuity to the extent of pecuniary loss, caused to the Government. 19. This would apply only if the pension or gratuity is paid and pecuniary loss is caused to the Government. In that case, the President can also recover the gratuity to the extent of pecuniary loss, caused to the Government. 19. Rule 69(1)(c) of Rules of 1972 provides that no gratuity shall be paid to the government servant until conclusion of the departmental or judicial proceedings and issue of final orders thereon. The judicial proceedings have not yet been concluded as the conviction and sentence of the petitioner has been stayed but the appeal against the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for an offence under Section 304B IPC is pending adjudication before the High Court. Thus, the judicial proceedings are pending and final order thereof has not yet been passed by the High Court. Rule 69(1)(c) of the Rules of 1972 authorises the Government to withhold the gratuity till conclusion of departmental or judicial proceedings. 20. The judgment referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of H.R. Choudhary (supra) did not refer to Rule 69(1)(c) of the Rules of 1972 and further that was a case of an offence under Section 306 IPC i.e. abetment of suicide whereas the present is the case under Section 304B IPC i.e. dowry death. 21. In the case of Mahesh Chandra Soni (supra), learned Single Judge of this Court has held that judicial proceedings as referred to in Rule 90 of Pension Rules, 1996 is in regard to the proceedings of an act of an employee pertaining to the official duties or in his office. However, the word ‘judicial proceedings’ cannot be treated for the proceedings related to the ‘family disputes’, which has nothing to do with the official duties or functioning of the employee in his office. In the facts of that case, the respondent – State themselves, on a misconduct report after inquiry, have decided not to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 22. Be that as it may, the facts of that case are not at par with the present case, as in the present case, the petitioner has been held guilty for an offence under Section 304B IPC. 22. Be that as it may, the facts of that case are not at par with the present case, as in the present case, the petitioner has been held guilty for an offence under Section 304B IPC. As demand of dowry has been included as misconduct under the Conduct Rules and as per Rule 9 of the Rules of 1972, the President has the power to withhold the gratuity, if a person has been held guilty in judicial proceedings, wherein an employee has been found guilty of grave misconduct. The Tribunal has rightly dealt with the arguments put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner. 23. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order so as to exercise the writ jurisdiction. The Department has rightly withheld gratuity, as the petitioner has been found guilty of committing dowry death. 24. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.