JUDGMENT : Ajit Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner namely, Dr. Himanshu Shekhar Tripathi is a retired Deputy Director (Administration/Commerce) of Mandi Parishad, Prayagraj. He has been served with the chargesheet dated 14 th September, 2023 to hold domestic enquiry under the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 1999) read with Section 351-A of CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS (hereinafter referred to as “CSR”) in the matter of financial loss to the tune of Rs. 5.13 crores caused to the Mandi Parishad for his alleged conspiracy and mismanagement in procurement and sale of paddy and thereby committing embezzlement. He has also challenged the consequential charge sheet dated 5.12.2023 and has also prayed for a writ of mandamus for release of gratuity amount with further interest thereupon for delay and has also prayed for revised pay-scale benefits and consequential arrears of salary from 1/1/2006 till 18 th Mach, 2011 as per office memorandum issued on 23 rd August, 2023. 2. For assailing the institution of departmental enquiry and the chargesheet and questioning the act of respondents in withholding gratuity, Mr. Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has raised following arguments: (i) CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS (CSR) do not apply to the employees of the Mandi Parishad, more especially in view of amendment carried out to the U.P. Agricultural Produce Markets Board (Officers and Staff Establishment) Regulations 1984 vide 7 th amendment dated 30 th September, 2014; (ii) Even, if CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS apply, its Article 351-A would not apply as Mandi Parishad establishment is not a pensionable establishment; (iii) The gratuity admissible to the employee shall be governed under the Payment of Death-cum-Gratuity Act, 1984 and unless and until conditions prescribed under the Act are attained to withhold the gratuity, gratuity cannot be withhold. 3. In support of his argument, Mr. Shah has taken the Court to the amended provision of Regulation 28 of 1984 Regulations that are reproduced hereunder: “COLUMN-1 COLUMN-1 Existing Regulation Regulations as hereby substituted 28. The rules relating to disciplinary proceedings appeals and representations against punishment, applicable to the employees of the State Government shall mutatis mutandis apply to the employees of the Board. Shah has taken the Court to the amended provision of Regulation 28 of 1984 Regulations that are reproduced hereunder: “COLUMN-1 COLUMN-1 Existing Regulation Regulations as hereby substituted 28. The rules relating to disciplinary proceedings appeals and representations against punishment, applicable to the employees of the State Government shall mutatis mutandis apply to the employees of the Board. In relation to disciplinary proceedings appeals and representations against punishment the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Appeals and disciplinary proceedings) Rules, 1999, applicable to the employees of the State Government shall mutatis mutandis apply to the employees of the Board.” 4. Citing the above provisions, Mr. Shah submitted that prior to 2014 while rules in general relating to disciplinary proceeding , the appeal and revision against punishment as applicable to the employees of the State Government, were made applicable, but after 2014 amended, Rules, 1999 were specifically made applicable to the employees of the Board. So according to Mr. Shah, CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS would not apply because the amended provision of Regulation 28 makes only Rules, 1999 to be applicable. 5. In support of his second argument, Mr. Shah submitted that CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS are made applicable only to a pensionable establishment and so also Regulations 351-A provide for withholding or withdrawing pension or any part of it and so no enquiry could have been instituted taking recourse to the provision as contained under Section 351-A. It is argued that since Regulation 351-A as well as Section 351-AA are not applicable and hence the Regulation 919-A will equally not applied . 6. In support of his submission, Mr. Shah has placed reliance upon an authority of this Court in the matter of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad v. Public Services Tribunal and Others , (2008) 3 All LJ 4 (DB). 7. In support of his third argument, Mr. Shah submitted that Payment of Death-cum-Gratuity Act, 1984 being Special Act governing field of gratuity, general law for gratuity governed under the Government Orders and Regulations framed for the said purpose would not be applicable and since the Gratuity Act does not provide for withholding gratuity except in the circumstances provided for under Section 4 (6) of Payment of Gratuity Act 1972. Petitioner being neither terminated nor removed, his gratuity could not have been withheld by the respondent. 8. In support of his third argument, Mr. Petitioner being neither terminated nor removed, his gratuity could not have been withheld by the respondent. 8. In support of his third argument, Mr. Shah has placed relied upon the judgment of a coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Brahmanand Tyagi v. State of U.P. and Others being Writ Appeal No. 6237 of 2022 decided on 15.7.2022 , Mr. Shah has also pleaded that gratuity is a property within the meaning of Article 301-A of the Constitution, therefore, it cannot be withheld except by due process of law. 9. In Counter to the above arguments, Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned Advocate appearing for the Mandi Parishad submitted that in view of Regulations 26,28 and 29 of the STAFF REGULATIONS , 1984, the service conditions having been made subject to the Rules, 1999 as applicable and further with residuary clause of Regulation 29 providing for rules and regulations as applicable to the State Government employees shall apply to employees of board except were otherwise provision is there governing the field under any Special Government order or Rules framed for the staff of the Board. The relevant Rules 27 and 28 and 29 of the Relevant Regulations are reproduced hereunder: “27. Conduct - Provision of Government Servant conduct rules applicable to State Government Employees shall mutatis mutandis apply to the employees of Board. 28. Control and appeal- The rules relating to disciplinary proceedings appeals and representations against punishment, applicable to the employees of the State Government shall mutatis mutandis apply to the employees of the Board. 29. Regulation of other matter- In regard to the matter not specifically covered by the rules or by special orders, persons appointed to the service of the Board shall be governed by the rules, regulations and orders applicable generally to State Government Employees.” 10. In support of his argument, learned Advocate has relied upon the division bench judgment of this Court in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Others v. Anil Kumar Sharma and Another , being Special Appeal (Def) No. 646 of 2021 decided on 23 rd October 2021 and the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Prahlad Sharma v. State of U.P. being Appeal (Civil) No. 1257 of 2004 decided on 24 th February 2004. 11. Mr. 11. Mr. Bhushan, distinguishing the judgment in the case Rajpal Singh Sengar v. State of U.P. and others , being Writ Appeal No. 14430 of 2023 decided on 3 rd April 2023 , submitted that the issue involved in the present case is different because in the said case issue was as to whether there was any sanction under Section 351-A or not, which according to Mr. Bhushan is very much present here in view of the order sanctioning initiation of disciplinary enquiry under Article 351-A issued by competent authority and so there is no dispute about competence of the authority. 12. Mr. Bhushan further submitted that with the amendment being carried out in CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS by incorporating Regulation 919-A, the word and expression ‘pension’ under CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS is to include gratuity as well. The employer has been held entitled to withhold death-cum- retirement gratuity during pendency of disciplinary proceedings. It is further directed that in view of definition of pension given under Regulation 41, the pension would ordinarily include the gratuity unless word ‘pension’ is used in contradistinction to gratuity. 13. In support of his argument, Mr. Bhushan has placed reliance upon division bench judgment of this Court in Sri Pal Vaish v. U.P. Corporation Ltd. and Another , being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52656 of 2000, decided on 13 th August 2009. 14. Having heard learned counsel for respective parties and having perused the records as well as authorities cited before me from both sides, I find argument nos. 1 and 2 advanced by Mr. Shah to be related to each other and the argument no. 3 deserves to be considered only in the event argument nos. 1 and 2 are rejected for the reason CSR are held not applicable then whether pension or gratuity, the very proceeding as drawn under Section 351- A under the order impugned is liable to be struck down, and therefore, there would arise no issue as to the question no. 3 because in that event gratuity shall stand governed under the Rules/ Regulations of the Board to be read down with Death-cum-Gratuity Act, 1984. 15. 3 because in that event gratuity shall stand governed under the Rules/ Regulations of the Board to be read down with Death-cum-Gratuity Act, 1984. 15. In view of above, therefore, following points are framed for determination of this Court : (a) whether the CSR that are applicable to the Government servants would also be applicable to the employees of the Mandi Parishad in the event U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 have been made applicable reading down the provisions as contained in Regulation 28 with Regulation 26 of 1984 of STAFF REGULATIONS , would render the institution of disciplinary proceedings valid. (b) Whether in the absence of any provision under CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS , gratuity of an employee after his retirement could have been withheld during pendency of disciplinary proceedings, if any. 16. Of the two points that have been framed above, in my view, second point is more referable to the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1984. 17. I would have straight away come to the authorities cited by learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties to find answer to the first point, but I consider it appropriate to deal with provisions as contained under Regulation 27,28 and 29 of STAFF REGULATIONS 1984 to find out as to whether harmonious constructions of these very provisions would lead to draw inference/ analogy that whatever the area has remained untouched in the matters of service conditions of the employees of the Board, that would continue to be governed by such rules and regulations that are applicable to the government employees. 18. As per regulations of STAFF REGULATIONS 1984 quoted above, (paragraph 9) the Government Servant Conduct Rules have been made applicable to the employees of the board (Vide Regulation 27), and qua disciplinary proceedings and appeals and representations against punishment, rules relating to employees of the State Government have been made applicable to the employees of the Board as well (Regulation 28), and further in regard to matter not specifically governed by regulations, namely, 1984 STAFF REGULATIONS , or by special orders, persons appointed to the service of the Board have been made to be governed in those areas by rules and regulations and orders as are generally applicable to the State Government employees (vide Regulation 29). 19. 19. This above Regulation 28 came to be amended in 2014 whereby specifically U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 only have been made applicable. This is apparent from the language of the old provision deleted and new provision incorporated as quoted above. It is apparent that there is a departure by the rule making authority from applications of general service laws governing the field of disciplinary proceedings as was then applicable to the employees of the Board, making it very specific and narrowing down the broad principles of applicability of general rules and orders by referring only to Rules, 1999. 20. From the language of the provisions as contained under Regulation 29, it is clear that it refers to an area not specifically covered by the rules. After reading the provisions of Regulation 27 and 28, it becomes absolutely explicit and leaves no room of doubt that in the matter of imposition of punishment of any kind relating to act and conduct of employees in Government Service Rules, 1999 will be applicable. 21. Had the rule making authority intended to make CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS applicable, it would have, while bringing amendment in 2014 to Regulation 28 must have got incorporated the words and expression CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS as well, but it was not done so, obviously because service of establishment was not pensionable and the CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS were chiefly framed/enacted for the purposes of pension, its applicability and to determine eligibility as well. 22. Regulation 351-A provides for withholding pension or a part thereof even after retirement with sanction of Governor. Regulation 919-A came to be incorporated with its subclause 3 to withhold death-cum- retirement gratuity as well. 23. This has came to be inserted to assure that even gratuity is not paid during enquiry. This was done obviously because pension as defined in regulation 41 would not include gratuity always, in as much as the Payment of Gratuity Act being special Act with special provisions, the State may have thought it to merely withhold gratuity during enquiry. 24. Now, we have reason that neither U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal ) Rules, 1999 provided for any enquiry after retirement, nor STAFF REGULATIONS , 1984 provided for any such enquiry and in these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the argument that CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS would still be applicable to the employees of the Board/Parishad. 24. Now, we have reason that neither U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal ) Rules, 1999 provided for any enquiry after retirement, nor STAFF REGULATIONS , 1984 provided for any such enquiry and in these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the argument that CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS would still be applicable to the employees of the Board/Parishad. In the event, if CSR did not apply, the respondents were not entitled to initiate any departmental enquiry/proceedings taking aid to the provisions as contained under Regulation 351-A of CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS . 25. In so far as residuary clause Regulation 29 is concerned, in my considered view, this is applicable in the matter where any service condition of an employee would not be covered by any kind of rules or regulations. Even otherwise service conditions as are applicable to an employee survives only during subsistence of contract of employment. The moment an employee attains age of superannuation, he ceases to be an employee and in absence of any relevant provision of law, no service condition can any more be made applicable to such an employee, nor he can be fastened with any liability of any kind for the act done during employment unless and until rules/ regulations provide otherwise. 26. Mr. Bhushan has not been able to show any provision of law either under Rules, 1999 or STAFF REGULATIONS , 1984, which may provide for any kind of action against a retired employee even by way of recovery. 27. In the case of Brahmanand Tyagi (supra) Court has dealt with this aspect for applicability of CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS to the employees of Mandi Parishad at great length by referring to division bench judgment in the case of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (supra) and the cases of S.P.S. Raghav v. State of U.P. and Others , being Writ (C) No. 68244 of 2009, decided on 12 th December 2017 and in the case of Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P. and Others , being Writ Appeal No. 7517 of 2016 decided on 29.2.2016. 28. In the case of S.P.S. Raghav (supra) and Rajendra Prasad (supra), it has been categorically held that in absence of any rule no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated against retired employee. In my view there is no quarrel about this principle nor, Mr. Bhushan would be disputing this principle of law. 29. 28. In the case of S.P.S. Raghav (supra) and Rajendra Prasad (supra), it has been categorically held that in absence of any rule no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated against retired employee. In my view there is no quarrel about this principle nor, Mr. Bhushan would be disputing this principle of law. 29. In the case of Dev Prakash Tiwari v. Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow and Others , (2014) 7 SCC 260 , the Supreme Court has held that in the absence of any provisions contained in U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees’ Service Regulations 1975, for initiation or continuation of disciplinary proceeding after retirement of appellant (therein), nor is there any provision stating that in case of misconduct established, a deduction could be made from his retirement benefits. Once appellant has retired on 31 st March, 2009, there was no authority vested with respondents in continuing disciplinary proceedings even for the purpose of imposing any reducting in retirement benefits payable to the appellant. In that case, it was even worse because disciplinary enquiry was already underway when the appellant in the case had retired and Court ultimately observed; “it must be held that enquiry had lapsed and the appellant was entitled to get full retirement benefits”. 30. Regarding non applicability of CSR in the case of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (supra), the Court had framed as mentioned as 5 points for determination and for the purpose of this case, point in issue herein point no. 4 are relevant which is reproduced hereunder: “9. We have heard Sri BD Madhyanh, Senior Advocate, Sri Udai Chandani for the petitioners and Sri RK Awasthi counsel for the contesting respondent (See Endnote-1). The following points arise for determination in this case: (i)Whether the contesting respondent was given reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry. (ii)Whether any prejudice has been caused to the contesting respondent, due to non observance of principles of natural of justice. (iii)Whether it is a fit case where the disciplinary proceedings should be dropped against the contesting respondent. (iv)The contesting respondent reached the age of superannuation on 31.1.1994. In these circumstances, whether at this stage any disciplinary inquiry can continue against the contesting respondent. (v)Whether the award of 18% interest on salary and other service benefit is correct.” 31. Deliberating upon point no. (iv)The contesting respondent reached the age of superannuation on 31.1.1994. In these circumstances, whether at this stage any disciplinary inquiry can continue against the contesting respondent. (v)Whether the award of 18% interest on salary and other service benefit is correct.” 31. Deliberating upon point no. 4, the Court referred to Regulation 43 of the CSR that are pari materia to unamended Regulation 28 of the STAFF REGULATIONS , 1984 and then Court referred to Section 351-A of CSR and finally concluded that if any post is non pensionable, then Article 351- A would have no application and hence there would be no recovery from the pension of such retired employee. Vide paragraphs 24 to 30, the Court held thus: “24. The Board, with prior approval of the State Government, has framed the Service Regulations. Regulation 43 relates to disciplinary proceeding. It is as follows: “43. The rules relating to disciplinary proceeding, appeals and representations against punishment, applicable to the employees of the State Government shall mutatis mutandis apply to the members of the centralised service.” 25. This regulation applies the rules relating to disciplinary proceeding, appeal and representations against punishment, applicable to the employees of the State Government, to the employees of the Board with appropriate changes that should be made in respect to the employees of the Board. 26. The following rules were applicable to the government servant at the time of disciplinary inquiry: The Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1930 (as notified in the State of UP) (the 1930 Rules); The Punishment and Appeal Rules for Subordinate Services Uttar Pradesh, 1932 (the 1932 Rules); and Civil Services Regulation 351-A. 27. At present, UP Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (the 1999 Rules) are in force and the 1930 Rules and the 1932 Rules have been rescinded. The inquiry, if it is to be conducted then, has to be done in the light of the 1999 Rules {see Rule 17(2) of the 1999 Rules} and Civil Services Regulation 351-A. However, it is not material whether the 1930 and 1932 Rules or the 1999 Rules are applicable because there is no difference in them on the question whether disciplinary proceeding can continue after age of superannuation. 28. 28. The counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that: The contesting respondent reached the age of superannuation during pendency of the case before the Tribunal on 31.1.1994; The disciplinary proceeding after date of superannuation can continue only if article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations is applicable; Article 351-A is applicable only to pensionable posts; The post of the petitioner is not pensionable and as such article 351-A is not applicable; There is no other provision under which disciplinary proceeding can continue after superannuation. The entire disciplinary proceeding has become infructuous after superannuation and are to be dropped. Article 351-A of Civil Services Regulations--Not Applicable 29. Article 351-A of the Civil Services Regulation empowers the Governor to withhold or withdraw pension or any part of it permanently or for the specified period; or Order for recovery from the pension for any pecuniary loss caused to the government. 30. In case any post is not pensionable then Article 351-A is not be applicable as there is no question of any recovery from the pension of that person. The post of the petitioner is not pensionable and as such it is not applicable.” 32. After holding as above, the bench considered and discussed various authorities (supra) cited before it and ultimately answered the question, the point framed as under vide paragraph 43 (b) (c) thus: “43. Our conclusions are as follows: (a)………. (b) The post of contesting respondent is non-pensionable. Article 351-A of Civil Services Regulation is not applicable. After the age of superannuation, the disciplinary proceeding can not go on in absence of any specific provision. (c) The contesting respondent is entitled to post retiral benefit as well as arrears of salary (minus the subsistence allowance paid to him). However, he is not entitled to any interest on the amount payable to him.” 33. Thus, it is clear that if the CSR are held to be not applicable to the employees of the board/Mandi Parishad, then there is no provision contained under the STAFF REGULATIONS 1984 and U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 to empower/authorize respondents to have instituted enquiry under the order impugned dated 14.09.2023 and consequential charge-sheet dated 5.12.2023, impugned in this petition. 34. Mr. 34. Mr. Adarsh Bhushan had raised pleas to question the judgment for the reason that judgment was delivered in the year 2008 and yet did not notice the provisions as contained under Regulation 41, which was already there in the Regulations and Regulation 919-A, which came to be incorporated vide amendment made with notification issued on 28.10.1980, and therefore, not to be a binding precedent. 35. I have carefully examined the provisions of CSR as cited before me. Upon reading the relevant provisions right from beginning till end, I find that CSR were chiefly framed for the purposes of pension and amendments had been carried out while suitably amending CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS in its applications to the Sate of U.P. Regulation 1 (a) has been retained and it provides as under: “These regulations are intended to define in the conditions under which pension is earned by service in Civil Department and in what manner it is calculated.” 36. Then Regulation 38 defines pay and salary and Regulation 41 defines pension. Regulation 41 is reproduced hereunder: “41. Pension .- Except when the term ‘ pension’ is used in contradistinction to Gratuity, ‘Pension’ included Gratuity.” 37. From the above provision, it is clear that pension is to include gratuity when term/word not used in contradistinction to gratuity. The question whether gratuity is included in pension and/ or pension includes gratuity would depend upon the applicability of the rules regarding that to an establishment. In the event an establishment is not having pension rules and pension is not given to its employees, then the word gratuity would be referable to the Rules framed and/or for that Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 being Special Act enacted in that regard. It is worth noticing that qualifying service as prescribed under Regulation 351-B refers to pension only 38. Article 351-A also refers to pension for the purposes of withholding the same on account of any pecuniary loss caused to the government for misconduct of an employee. Regulation 919-A empowers employer to withhold death-cum-retirement gratuity payable during pendency of departmentaly enquiry qua the government servant only. The conclusion of departmental proceedings, in my considered view, even if Regulation 919-A is taken to have defined death-cum-retirement gratuity in contradistinction to pension to enable employer to withhold it, it would be applicable only in the event CSR are applicable and power exercised under Article 351-A is upheld. The conclusion of departmental proceedings, in my considered view, even if Regulation 919-A is taken to have defined death-cum-retirement gratuity in contradistinction to pension to enable employer to withhold it, it would be applicable only in the event CSR are applicable and power exercised under Article 351-A is upheld. Regulation 919-A(3) is reproduced hereunder: “(3) No death-cum-retirment gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until the conclusion of the departmental proceedings or the enquiry by the Administrative Tribunal and issue of final orders thereon.” 39. In so far as division bench judgment in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Others (supra) cited by Mr. Bhushan is concerned, the issue I find to be involved in the said case was more regarding sanction not being granted by the authority and not an issue qua applicability of the CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS as prescribed under the provisions of STAFF REGULATIONS 1984 which is involved in the present case, and therefore, the judgment is distinguishable on facts. 40. In so far as the judgment in the case of Prahlad Sharma (supra) is concerned, the Court I find was dealing more with power of revision by an authority whereas exercise of such power was vested with the State Government and the Court in that context held that if any authority corresponding or parallel to the State Government was available with the Corporation, then such an authority must be taken to have exercised revisional power as conferred upon the State Government in Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1999, which power otherwise vested with the State Government. The Court ultimately held that such power could be exercised validly by a competent authority of Corporation. The Court further held that the High Court was wrong in holding that revisional power could not have been exercised by the authority of the Corporation which was otherwise vested with the State Government under the Rules, 1999. The judgment held that corresponding position holder could have exercised power, but the Court did not determine as to whether such power as vested under CSR was available as there was no such issue involved. In the present case a power by competent authority to sanction could have been exercised or if exercised could have been upheld provided CSR was applicable. This law is well settled that CSR is not applicable to the employees of the Board/Parishad. 41. In the present case a power by competent authority to sanction could have been exercised or if exercised could have been upheld provided CSR was applicable. This law is well settled that CSR is not applicable to the employees of the Board/Parishad. 41. In so far as judgment in the case of Sri Pal Vaish (supra) is concerned, the Court held that pension-cum-gratuity under Article 351-A stands covered. In my considered view, this question does not arise in the present case in the event CSR are not applicable and I have already held that CSR are not applicable to the employees of the board. 42. Thus, point no. (a) is answered in negative. 43. Now, coming to the second point as to the entitlement to the payment of gratuity, I find that Regulation 8 of the Staff Regulation 1984 have come to be amended in 2014 and this time instead of referring to the Payment of Gratuity Act, payment of gratuity has been made subject to Regulations governing service conditions of the employees of the Board/ Parishad. The relevant provisions as stood prior to amendment in 2014 and after the amendment 2014 in Regulation 8 of the Staff Regulation 1984 are reproduced hereunder: “8. In the said regulations in regulations 25 for sub regulation (3) set out in Column-1 below the sub regulation as set out in Column-2 shall be substituted, namely:- COLUMN-1 COLUMN-2 Existing sub-regulation Sub Regulation as hereby substituted (3) Employees covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 will be paid gratuity according to the provisions of that Act. For employees who are not covered by the said act, payment gratuity shall be regulated by the decisions of the Board taken from time to time within the limitations of the general directions or guidelines issued by the State Government from time to time. (3) Payment of gratuity to Board employees shall be such as maya be decided from time to time by the board keeping in view of the general directions or guidelines issued by the State Government from time to time.” 44. After above amendment, it is taken to mean that Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 would not apply and the gratuity of the retired employees of the Corporation would stand governed under the general directions or guidelines issued by the State Government. After above amendment, it is taken to mean that Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 would not apply and the gratuity of the retired employees of the Corporation would stand governed under the general directions or guidelines issued by the State Government. Even by virtue of this amendment gratuity cannot be withheld because there is no provision to initiate proceedings against a retired employee still I find there to be no provision in Rules, 1999 to withhold gratuity. Gratuity being a rightful claim of an employee, can only be withheld if conditions as prescribed for under Sub Section 6 of the Section 4 of Payment of Gratuity Act are met. Section 4 and 6 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is reproduced hereunder: “4. Payment of gratuity: (1) Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years - (a) on his superannuation, or (b) on his retirement or resignation, or (c) on his death or disablement due to accident or disease: Provided that the completion of continuous service of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement: Provided further that in the case of death of the employee, gratuity payable to him shall be paid to his nominee or, if no nomination has been made, to his heirs, and where any such nominees or heirs is a minor, the share of such minor, shall be deposited with the controlling authority who shall invest the same for the benefit of such minor in such bank or other financial institution, as may be prescribed, until such minor attains majority. Explanation : For the purposes of this section, disablement means such disablement as incapacitates an employee for the work which he, was capable of performing before the accident or disease resulting in such disablement. Explanation : For the purposes of this section, disablement means such disablement as incapacitates an employee for the work which he, was capable of performing before the accident or disease resulting in such disablement. (2) For every completed year of service or part thereof in excess of six months, the employer shall pay gratuity to an employee at the rate of fifteen days wages based on the rate of wages last drawn by the employee concerned: Provided that in the case of a piece-rated employee, daily wages shall be computed on the average of the total wages received by him for a period of three months immediately preceding the termination of his employment, and, for this purpose, the wages paid for any overtime work shall not be taken into account.: Provided further that in the case of [an employee who is employed in a seasonal establishment and who is riot so employed throughout the year], the employer shall pay the gratuity at the rate of seven days wages for each season. Explanation: In the case of a monthly rated employee, the fifteen days wages shall be calculated by dividing the monthly rate of wages last drawn by him by twenty-six and multiplying the quotient by fifteen. (3) The amount of gratuity payable to an employee shall not exceed three lakhs and fifty thousand] rupees. (4) For the purpose of computing the gratuity payable to an employee who is employed, after his disablement, on reduced wages, his wages for the period preceding his disablement shall be taken to be the wages received by him during that period, and his wages for the period subsequent to his disablement shall be taken to be the wages as so reduced. (5) Nothing in this section shall affect the right of an employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any award or agreement or contract with the employer. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1): (a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful 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. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1): (a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful 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. (b) 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. (7) **** (Emphasis added) 45. In the case of State of Allahabad Bank and Another v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association , (2010) 2 SCC 44, the Court dealt with relevant provisions as contained under Section 4 of the Payment of the Gratuity Act and held vide paragraph 14 thus: “14. A plane reading of the provisions referred to hereinbove makes it abundantly clear that there is no escape from payment of gratuity under the provisions of the Act under the establishment is granted exemption from the operation of the provision of the Act by the appropriate Government.” 46. After discussing the case laws on the point as to the applicability of pension and payment of provident fund and gratuity, the Court vide paragraphs 20, 21 and 22 has held as under: 20 . In Union of India v. All India Services Pensioners' Assn. [ (1988) 2 SCC 580 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 651 : (1988) 7 ATC 449] , this Court explained that there is always a distinction between the pension payable on retirement and the gratuity payable on retirement. “8. … While pension is payable periodically as long as the pensioner is alive, gratuity is ordinarily paid only once on retirement. ” (SCC p. 586, para 8)” 21. No decision of this Court which has taken a view contrary to the decisions referred to hereinabove has been brought to our notice. 22. In our considered opinion, pensionary benefits or the retirement benefits as the case may be whether governed by a scheme or rules may be a package consisting of payment of pension and as well as gratuity. No decision of this Court which has taken a view contrary to the decisions referred to hereinabove has been brought to our notice. 22. In our considered opinion, pensionary benefits or the retirement benefits as the case may be whether governed by a scheme or rules may be a package consisting of payment of pension and as well as gratuity. Pensionary benefits may include payment of pension as well as gratuity. One does not exclude the other. Only in cases where the gratuity component in such pension schemes is in better terms in comparison to that of what an employee may get under the Payment of Gratuity Act the Government may grant an exemption and relieve the employer from the statutory obligation of payment of gratuity. 47. In the case of State of Jharkhand v. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava , (2013) 12 SCC 210 , the Court held that gratuity and pension are not bounties and benefits are conferred upon the employees continuous faithful an unblemish service records and since these are not gratuitous payment depend upon sweet-will of employment, they cannot be withheld without due process of law. 48. In the case of Y.K. Singla v. Punjab National Bank and others , (2013) 3 SCC 472 , the Court dealt with provision as contained under Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, it gives them overriding effect upon other enactments and Vide 22 held as under: “22. In order to determine which of the two provisions (the Gratuity Act or the 1995 Regulations) would be applicable for determining the claim of the appellant, it is also essential to refer to Section 14 of the Gratuity Act, which is being extracted hereunder: “ 14. Act to override other enactments, etc. —The provisions of this Act or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument or contract having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act.” (Emphasis supplied) A perusal of Section 14 leaves no room for any doubt that a superior status has been vested in the provisions of the Gratuity Act vis-à-vis any other enactment (including any other instrument or contract) inconsistent therewith. Therefore, insofar as the entitlement of an employee to gratuity is concerned, it is apparent that in cases where gratuity of an employee is not regulated under the provisions of the Gratuity Act, the legislature having vested superiority to the provisions of the Gratuity Act over all other provisions/enactments (including any instrument or contract having the force of law), the provisions of the Gratuity Act cannot be ignored. The term “instrument” and the phrase “instrument or contract having the force of law” shall most definitely be deemed to include the 1995 Regulations, which regulate the payment of gratuity to the appellant.” 49. The same has also been defined as property under Article 300- A of the Constitution of India. Vide paragraph 8, the Court has held thus: “ 8. It is an accepted position that gratuity and pension are not bounties. An employee earns these benefits by dint of his long, continuous, faithful and unblemished service. Conceptually it is so lucidly described in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [ (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] by D.A. Desai, J. who spoke for the Bench, in his inimitable style, in the following words: (SCC pp. 319-20, paras 18-20)” 18. The approach of the respondents raises a vital and none too easy of answer, question as to why pension is paid. And why was it required to be liberalised? Is the employer, which expression will include even the State, bound to pay pension? Is there any obligation on the employer to provide for the erstwhile employee even after the contract of employment has come to an end and the employee has ceased to render service? 19. What is a pension? What are the goals of pension? What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division of retirement pre and post a certain date? We need seek answer to these and incidental questions so as to render just justice between parties to this petition. 20. What public interest or purpose, if any, it seeks to serve? If it does seek to serve some public purpose, is it thwarted by such artificial division of retirement pre and post a certain date? We need seek answer to these and incidental questions so as to render just justice between parties to this petition. 20. The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar [ (1971) 2 SCC 330 : 1971 Supp SCR 634 ] wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyone's discretion. It is only for the purpose of quantifying the amount having regard to service and other allied matters that it may be necessary for the authority to pass an order to that effect but the right to receive pension flows to the officer not because of any such order but by virtue of the rules. This view was reaffirmed in State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh [ (1976) 2 SCC 1 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 172 : (1976) 2 LLJ 377 ] .” It is thus a hard earned benefit which accrues to an employee and is in the nature of “property”. This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. (Emphasis added) 50. This right to property cannot be taken away without the due process of law as per the provisions of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. (Emphasis added) 50. In the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Rabindranath Choubey , (2020) 18 SCC 71 , the Court was considering the relevant rules that prescribed for withholding of gratuity and the Court held that in the circumstances of special provisions contained under the relevant rules with the right to withhold the gratuity during pendency of disciplinary proceedings, the same could have been done and on the point of initiation of disciplinary proceedings , the Court held that inflictment of punishment in the nature of withholding gratuity would still stand governed under the Special Act. Reading down presentation of Gratuity Act read with subsection 6 of Section 4 of 1999 Rules. Vide paragraph 78 and 79, the Court held thus: “78. To sum up, my conclusion to the question is as under: 78.1.Que. 1 —Whether it is permissible in law for the employer to withhold the payment of gratuity even after the employee has attained his superannuation from service because of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him? Ans. I am in agreement with the view expressed by Brother Shah, J. that in view of Rule 34.3 of the 1978 Rules, the employer has a right to withhold gratuity during pendency of the disciplinary proceedings. 78.2.Que. 2 —Whether the penalty of dismissal could be imposed after the employee stood retired from service? Ans. In my considered view, after conclusion of the disciplinary inquiry, if held guilty, indeed a penalty can be inflicted upon an employee/delinquent who stood retired from service and what should be the nature of penalty will always depend on the relevant scheme of the Rules and on the facts and circumstances of each case, but either of the substantive penalties specified under Rule 27 of the 1978 Rules including dismissal from service are not open to be inflicted on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment of forfeiture of gratuity commensurate with the nature of guilt may be inflicted upon a delinquent employee provided under Rule 34.3 of the 1978 Rules read with sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the 1972 Act. 79. 79. To conclude, the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 17- 7-2013 [Rabindranath Choubey v. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Ori 114 : (2013) 116 CLT 946 ] is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside and the disciplinary authority may proceed and conclude the pending disciplinary proceedings expeditiously and take a final decision in accordance with the scheme of the 1978 Rules read with sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.” 51. The division bench judgment in the case of Jaswant Singh Gill v. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. 2007 (1) SCC 663 , though has not been taken notice by the majority judgment in the Chairman- cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields India Ltd. (supra) where same Rules were subject to interpretation and two Judge bench of the Supreme Court had held that Rules having no statutory force will give way to the statutory provision as contained in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Vide paragraph 11 and 12, and 13, the Court held thus: “11. Power to withhold penalty (sic gratuity) contained in Rule 34.3 of the Rules must be subject to the provisions of the Act. Gratuity becomes payable as soon as the employee retires. The only condition therefor is rendition of five years' continuous service. 12. A statutory right accrued, thus, cannot be impaired by reason of a rule which does not have the force of a statute. It will bear repetition to state that the Rules framed by Respondent 1 or its holding company are not statutory in nature. The Rules in any event do not provide for withholding of retiral benefits or gratuity. 13. The Act provides for a close-knit scheme providing for payment of gratuity. It is a complete code containing detailed provisions covering the essential provisions of a scheme for a gratuity. It not only creates a right to payment of gratuity but also lays down the principles for quantification thereof as also the conditions on which he may be denied therefrom. As noticed hereinbefore, sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Act contains a non obstante clause vis-à-vis sub-section (1) thereof. As by reason thereof, an accrued or vested right is sought to be taken away, the conditions laid down thereunder must be fulfilled. The provisions contained therein must, therefore, be scrupulously observed. As noticed hereinbefore, sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Act contains a non obstante clause vis-à-vis sub-section (1) thereof. As by reason thereof, an accrued or vested right is sought to be taken away, the conditions laid down thereunder must be fulfilled. The provisions contained therein must, therefore, be scrupulously observed. Clause (a) of sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Act speaks of termination of service of an employee for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage. However, the amount liable to be forfeited would be only to the extent of damage or loss caused. The disciplinary authority has not quantified the loss or damage. It was not found that the damages or loss caused to Respondent 1 was more than the amount of gratuity payable to the appellant. Clause (b) of sub- section (6) of Section 4 of the Act also provides for forfeiture of the whole amount of gratuity or part in the event his services had been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part or if he has been convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude. Conditions laid down therein are also not satisfied.” 52. Following judgment in the case of Jaswant Singh Gill (supra) the Division bench of this Court in Gopal Tyagi and Others v. State of U.P. and Others in Special Appeal No. 101 of 2015 decided on 23.2.2015 has held that Payment of Gratuity Act shall have overriding effect, the same cannot be withheld by taking aid to the Service Rules only. 53. I have discussed above the law on the question of payment gratuity and right of retired employee to gratuity but in view of fact that I have held CSR are not applicable and hence statutory provisions contained under Regulation 351-A are not attracted to the employees of the board/Parishad, so the very initiation of the proceedings under 1999 Rules with the aid of Regulation 351-A of the CSR is liable to be held unsustainable. Thus, since no proceeding could have been drawn, very initiation of departmental enquiry and resultant charge-sheet are rendered bad and illegal and the respondents, therefore, could not have withheld gratuity amount of the petitioner. Thus, since no proceeding could have been drawn, very initiation of departmental enquiry and resultant charge-sheet are rendered bad and illegal and the respondents, therefore, could not have withheld gratuity amount of the petitioner. Petitioner is held entitled to not only gratuity but also entitled to such service benefits like increment, which might have remained withheld at the end of respondent for departmental proceeding initiated against petitioner under the order impugned. The second point (b) is also answered in favour of petitioner. 54. In view of above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 14.9.2023 passed by Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P. Lucknow and consequential charge-sheet dated 5.12.2023, filed as annexure 1 and 2 to the writ petition are hereby quashed. 55. Accordingly disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner stand set aside. Respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for arrears of salary as per office memorandum dated 23 rd August, 2023 and calculate the entire post retirement dues alongwith interest @ 6 percent to be paid to the petitioner within a maximum period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Respondents are further directed to pay the entire gratuity amount of the petitioner to him alongwith interest @ 12 per cent within aforesaid period. 56. Cost made easy.