JUDGMENT : 1. The defeated applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench is the petitioner in this Original Petition. 2. The facts as disclosed in the Original Application reveal that the petitioner entered service as a RTP employee in the year 1982. She was absorbed into regular service in the year 1990. She retired from service on 30.11.2016. Alleging that there is a fraud committed by MPKBY agent at Velloor Class II Post Office for a period from 17.9.2007 to 29.5.2011, the petitioner was proceeded departmentally. By Annexure-A1 charge sheet dated 18.7.2016, the applicant was framed for the misconduct under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short ‘CCS (CCA) Rules’]. On culmination of the Departmental enquiry, which by the time, led to the retirement of the petitioner from service resulted in a report dated 24.7.2018. In Annexure-A2, the charges against the petitioner were proved and therefore, the matter was placed before the Government of India to take appropriate decision on the recommendation of withholding of 10% of her monthly pension, otherwise admissible to her, for a period of one year. In relation to the gratuity, it was observed that the admissible gratuity be paid to her if it is not required to be withheld in any other case. By Annexure-A3 order dated 4.10.2018, the said recommendations were accepted by the UPSC and orders were passed in terms of powers vested under Rule 9 of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, for withholding of 10% of her monthly pension, otherwise admissible to her during the period of one year. It was reiterated that the gratuity if not otherwise required to be withheld may be released. Immediately on issuance of Annexure-A3 order, the petitioner submitted representation to the Postmaster General under Annexure-A4 on 01.04.2019 requesting for release of the gratuity. This was followed by a series of representations which did not yield any result. Accordingly, the Original Application was preferred before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. 3. The respondents entered appearance and contested the claim. It was alleged that there was pecuniary loss caused to the Government due to the supervisory lapses on the part of the applicant and the same was quantified at Rs. 32,14,051/-. Accordingly, the Original Application was preferred before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. 3. The respondents entered appearance and contested the claim. It was alleged that there was pecuniary loss caused to the Government due to the supervisory lapses on the part of the applicant and the same was quantified at Rs. 32,14,051/-. Specific reliance was also placed on the civil suits filed by the respective depositors claiming recovery of money, wherein the petitioner was also made as a defendant and personal recovery is also sought for. Insofar as the requirement of law was concerned, the respondents took a stand that in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 69(1)(c) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the gratuity also could be withheld. 4. The petitioner filed a re-joinder and in response to the re-joinder, an additional reply statement was also filed. In the additional reply statement, it was specifically averred that the authorities had got the power to withhold the gratuity in terms of Rule 4 of the Central Civil Service (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981. Therefore, it was the specific case of the respondent that in terms of Rule 4 of the CCS (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 read with Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the decision to withhold the gratuity was proper. 5. On the consideration of materials on record, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench by the order impugned in the present Original Petition came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief sought for and that the authorities can withhold the gratuity on the allegation of loss caused to the Department on account of the supervisory lapses of the petitioner. It is aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has invoked the superintendence power of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. We have heard Sri. Sajith Kumar V. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Prenjith Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. Sri. Sajith Kumar would contend before us that the action of the respondents in withholding the gratuity is without any legal basis. He would refer to Annexure-A3 and would contend that the petitioner having accepted the order passed on 4.10.2018, the respondents could not have denied her claim for gratuity. Prenjith Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 7. Sri. Sajith Kumar would contend before us that the action of the respondents in withholding the gratuity is without any legal basis. He would refer to Annexure-A3 and would contend that the petitioner having accepted the order passed on 4.10.2018, the respondents could not have denied her claim for gratuity. He would further refer to Annexure-A3 order, wherein it is specifically stated that “withholding of 10% of her monthly pension, otherwise admissible to her, a period of one year be imposed on the CO, Smt. Mary Abraham, retired SPM. Her gratuity, if not otherwise required to be withheld in any other case, may be released.” Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant, by the order of the President based on Annexure-A2 report, it was thought fit to impose a penalty of “withholding of 10% of the monthly pension, otherwise admissible to her, for one year.” He would further submit that even going by Annexure-A2, the gratuity admissible to the petitioner was directed to be released, if not otherwise required to be withheld in any other case. (Emphasis supplied) He would thus thrust his argument based on the above findings and would submit that on the very same set of facts, the authorities could not have withheld the gratuity. Therefore, reliance placed on Rule 69 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 by the respondents was absolutely baseless and untenable. 8. On the other hand, Sri. Prenjith Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, would oppose the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and would specifically urge before this Court that in terms of Rule 37 of the General Financial Rules, 2017, the petitioner’s gratuity could be withheld. He would further contend that under Rule 69(1)(c) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the Union of India could withhold the gratuity, especially when judicial proceedings are yet to be culminated. 9. When we analysed the rival submissions raised across the bar, it becomes evidently clear that the proceedings against the petitioner, as evident from Annexure-A2, resulted in imposition of penalty of withholding of 10% of the pension for a period of one year. On passing of Annexure-A3 order, it must be necessarily held that the departmental proceedings came to an end. When we analysed the rival submissions raised across the bar, it becomes evidently clear that the proceedings against the petitioner, as evident from Annexure-A2, resulted in imposition of penalty of withholding of 10% of the pension for a period of one year. On passing of Annexure-A3 order, it must be necessarily held that the departmental proceedings came to an end. However, when we look at Rule 37 of the General Financial Rules, 2017, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, it appears that Rule 37 is in the general nature. For sake of convenience, Rule 37 is extracted hereunder: “Responsibility of losses: An officer shall be held personally responsible for any loss sustained by the Government through fraud or negligence on his part. He will also be held personally responsible for any loss arising from fraud or negligence of any other officer to the extent to which it may be shown that he contributed to the loss by his own action or negligence. The departmental proceedings for assessment of responsibility for the loss shall be conducted according to the instructions contained in Appendix-I and those issued by the Ministry of Personnel from time to time.” 10. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would further contend that even going by Rule 69(1)(c) read with Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the Department is entitled to withhold the gratuity of an employee if he/she is found guilty of gross misconduct or negligence in a departmental or judicial proceedings. He would further submit that there are various civil litigations pending against the department in which claim is also raised against the petitioner. Hence, unless the civil proceedings are terminated, the claim for gratuity cannot be settled. 11. On the basis of the submissions of the parties, we are called upon to decide two issues: (A) Whether the gratuity could be withheld notwithstanding the culmination of disciplinary proceedings? (B) Whether pendency of civil suits could act as deterrence on the department to release the gratuity? 12. We will first deal with the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that Rule 37 of General Financial Rules, 2017 would enable the respondents to withhold the gratuity. (B) Whether pendency of civil suits could act as deterrence on the department to release the gratuity? 12. We will first deal with the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that Rule 37 of General Financial Rules, 2017 would enable the respondents to withhold the gratuity. On a bare reading of the said Rule, we are of the considered view that it can apply only for initiation of Departmental enquiry against a delinquent for the alleged loss caused to the Government. Once such departmental enquiry has been initiated and culminated in an appropriate order/penalty against the delinquent, the respondents have no authority to withhold the gratuity thereafter on the same premise. Therefore, we reject the argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents based on Rule 37 of General Financial Rule, 2017. 13. Added to above, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would alternatively contend that Rule 69(1)(c) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, would empower the Government to withhold the gratuity when a judicial proceedings is pending. He would further point out that several civil suits are pending in which the liability of the petitioner is yet to be decided by the civil court. Hence, we are called upon to test the sustainability of this argument qua the order of the penalty issued against the petitioner on 4.10.2018. It must be noted that the said order has become final. The CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, no doubt, empowers the President to withhold the pension or gratuity or both of a delinquent employee. Admittedly, by order dated 4.10.2018, the President decided to impose a punishment of withholding of 10% of the pension for a period of one year. The further question would be once the departmental enquiry has culminated in an order of punishment under Rule 9(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, can the gratuity be withheld by taking cover under Rule 69(1)(c) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Obviously, answer cannot be in the affirmative. 14. We must necessarily hold that CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is a beneficial legislation and must receive liberal interpretation. If we are to accept the argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that despite the culmination of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondents could withhold the gratuity relying on Rule 69(1)(c) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, it would certainly do violence to the Rules. If we are to accept the argument of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that despite the culmination of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondents could withhold the gratuity relying on Rule 69(1)(c) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, it would certainly do violence to the Rules. In our considered view, Rule 69(1)(c) cannot be read in isolation. The power under Rule 69 (1)(c) has to be necessarily understood in the context of pendency of disciplinary proceedings or judicial proceedings, as the case may. When the President had the discretion of withholding of pension and gratuity and discretion was exercised in withholding of pension for a period of one year, the respondents cannot contend that since the civil proceedings are pending, they cannot entertain the request for payment of gratuity. Admittedly, no judicial proceedings either civil or criminal, has been initiated by the department on the allegation of the loss caused by the petitioner. What is now stated to be pending before the respective courts is the claim by the individual depositors claiming that they have been defrauded. In those proceedings, the petitioner is also arrayed as a defendant in her personal capacity. It may be true that in the respective civil litigations, the Union of India is also a party. However, that would not necessarily mean that the respondents could withhold the gratuity liable to be paid to the petitioner. No such Rule has been brought to the notice, which would enable the respondents to withhold the gratuity payable to the petitioner. 15. The view which we have taken above is certainly supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Hira Lal vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2020) 4 SCC 346 , wherein the Apex Court considered similar provision under Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. Interpreting Rule 4(3) of the said Rules, which gives power to the State Government to withhold the payment of gratuity during the pendency of a departmental or judicial proceedings, it was held that power to withhold either pension or gratuity can be exercised only on culmination of proceedings and on finding of guilt against the delinquent employee. Hence, we categorically hold that once departmental proceedings are culminated and an order of penalty has been imposed, the gratuity cannot be thereafter withheld on the ground of pendency of civil litigation. 16. Hence, we categorically hold that once departmental proceedings are culminated and an order of penalty has been imposed, the gratuity cannot be thereafter withheld on the ground of pendency of civil litigation. 16. The result of the above discussions leads to the irresistible conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The order of the Tribunal, holding that the respondents are entitled to withhold the gratuity, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, Ext.P1 order dated 20.11.2023 of the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside. The Original Application is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the gratuity due to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of Annexure-A3 order, namely 04.10.2018, till the same is paid. 17. The Original Petition is allowed as above. No order as to costs.