ORDER : REKHA BORANA, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 02.11.2018 (Annexure-4) whereby while deciding the representation of the petitioner in pursuance to order dated 09.08.2018 (Annexure-3) passed in the earlier writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7790/2017) filed by him, one of his prayers regarding payment of Provident Fund stood allowed whereas the other two prayers relating to pension, gratuity amount and terminal leave stood rejected. 2. Vide order impugned dated 02.11.2018 (Annexure-4), although a direction was issued for payment of the GPF amount to the petitioner, the same was made subject to the recovery of the payment drawn by him as salary for the period from 11.01.1999 to 12.10.2000 and also the alleged embezzled amount of Rs.25,539.58. 3. The facts are that the petitioner who was employed with the then RSEB, was arrested qua an offence for embezzlement/theft of Rs.25,539.58 on 02.07.1990. Vide order dated 12.07.1990, he stood suspended and on 23.12.1991, he was served with a memorandum of charges. Vide enquiry report dated 13.05.1998, the petitioner was found guilty of embezzlement and the disciplinary authority, while agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, served notice dated 01.11.1998 calling upon the response of the petitioner. The same was filed on 28.12.1998 and after considering the same, the disciplinary authority, vide order dated 11.01.1999, proceeded on to pass an order of punishment of dismissal from service and further, an order to recover the embezzled amount from the petitioner. 4. It has been averred on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner, meanwhile, forged reinstatement order dated 15.04.1998 and in pursuance to the same, he was even reinstated and he continued to work till 12.10.2000. However, when it came to the knowledge of the respondent authorities that order dated 15.04.1998 was a forged one, his services were again terminated vide order dated 12.10.2000 (Annexure-2). 5. In the year 2017, a writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7790/2017) was filed by the petitioner laying a challenge to order dated 11.01.1999 whereby his services were terminated. The said writ petition stood disposed of vide order dated 09.08.2018. The complete order, being relevant for the present purposes, is reproduced hereunder: “1. 5. In the year 2017, a writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7790/2017) was filed by the petitioner laying a challenge to order dated 11.01.1999 whereby his services were terminated. The said writ petition stood disposed of vide order dated 09.08.2018. The complete order, being relevant for the present purposes, is reproduced hereunder: “1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs :- “a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned dismissal order dated 11.01.1999 (Annex.3) may be declared as void and nonest in the eye of law and be quashed and set aside. b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service and to allow him to superannuate with all consequential benefits as if no dismissal order was passed against him. c) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. d) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.” 2. This Court passed following order on 10.7.2017 :- “Prima facie, this Court is of the view that the petitioner cannot lay any challenge to his order of termination passed way back on11.01.1999 after lapse of about 18 years; more particularly when such relief has not been asked for by the petitioner in his representation dated 11.07.2016 (Annex.14) filed along with the writ petition. Mr. Lokesh Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted one week’s time to complete his instructions; as to whether the petitioner wants to continue the present writ petition to the relief in relation to his amount lying deposited in his PF and other accounts. List on 17.07.2017.” 3. By the order aforesaid, the writ petition was confined to terminal benefits only. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a limited submission that the issue of his terminal benefits may be decided by the respondents by passing a speaking order, as he does not want to press the writ petition against the dismissal order dated 11.01.1999. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent assures the Court that a speaking order shall be passed strictly in accordance with law dealing with the issue of termination benefits to the petitioner. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent assures the Court that a speaking order shall be passed strictly in accordance with law dealing with the issue of termination benefits to the petitioner. 6. In light of the aforesaid submissions, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass appropriate orders within a period of 60 days from today strictly in accordance with law only pertaining to terminal benefits, if admissible to the petitioner.” 6. In compliance of Order dated 09.08.2018, the respondents proceeded on to pass order impugned dated 02.11.2018 (Annexure-4) which is under challenge in the present petition. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was entitled for his pension and gratuity amount in terms of the Rules and Regulations governing his services. The denial of the same and further the denial of terminal leave is against the said Rules/Regulations. 8. Counsel further submits that deduction of the salary amount as paid to the petitioner for the period he had put in work, is totally erroneous. He submits that the order directing recovery of the said amount from the PF/GPF amount of the petitioner is illegal and against the basic principles of law. The petitioner was definitely entitled for the salary for the period he worked and the same could not be recovered. 9. Per contra Counsel for the respondents, while relying upon Regulation 7 of the Employees Pension Regulations, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulations of 1988’), Regulation 48(4)(b) of the Employees Service Regulations, 1964 and the provisions of the Employees General Provident Fund, 1988, submitted that the present being a case of termination, the petitioner was neither entitled to pension nor to the gratuity amount in terms of the above provisions. 10. So far as the order directing for deduction of the salary amount paid to the petitioner is concerned, Counsel submitted that the same had already been directed vide order dated 12.10.2000 (Annexure-2). No challenge was ever laid to the said order and hence, the same attained finality long ago. The said order having never been challenged, the petitioner is estopped from raising any ground qua the same at this stage. 11. No challenge was ever laid to the said order and hence, the same attained finality long ago. The said order having never been challenged, the petitioner is estopped from raising any ground qua the same at this stage. 11. Counsel further submits that even otherwise, the petitioner was reinstated by virtue of a forged order and hence, even if he rendered any service in pursuance to the said forged order, he is not entitled to any amount qua the same and the said amount has rightly been ordered to be recovered. 12. Heard the counsels. Perused the record. 13. Coming on to the issue whether the petitioner is entitled for pension and gratuity amount and to the benefit of terminal leave, Regulation 7 of the Regulations of 1988 reads as under: “ 7. Misconduct or Inefficiency No gratuity or pension may be granted to a Board employee dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency; but to Board employee so dismissed or removed compassionate allowances, may be granted when they are deserving of special consideration; provided that the allowances granted to any Board employee shall not exceed two-thirds of the pension which would have been admissible to him if he had retired on medical certificate.” 14. A bare perusal of the above Regulation reflects that any employee of the Board who is dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency or inefficiency, is not entitled for any gratuity or pension amount. 15. So far as the dismissal/termination of the petitioner is concerned, it is an admitted fact that he was terminated way back in the year 1999 for misconduct and the writ petition preferred by him against the said order after a delay of 18 years was not entertained. The writ petition to that extent i.e. against dismissal order, stood not pressed. 16. In the opinion of this Court, once the order of termination attained finality, the petitioner definitely was not entitled for any pension or gratuity amount in terms of Regulation 7 of the Regulations of 1988. The said benefit rightly stood declined by the respondents. The same would be the case qua the benefit of terminal leave and it also rightly stood declined. 17. However, vide the order impugned, the petitioner has been held entitled for the grant of his GPF amount. The said benefit rightly stood declined by the respondents. The same would be the case qua the benefit of terminal leave and it also rightly stood declined. 17. However, vide the order impugned, the petitioner has been held entitled for the grant of his GPF amount. The issue is- Whether the amount paid as salary to him for the date from which he was reinstated till the date he was again terminated, is recoverable from the said amount? 18. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner stood acquitted in both the criminal proceedings-offence relating to embezzlement as well as the offence relating to the preparation of the forged order of reinstatement. Although both the said orders have not been placed on record, order impugned dated 02.11.2018 reflects the said fact. 19. So far as the reinstatement of the petitioner is concerned, it is incomprehensible as to how the departmental authorities too, without verifying the alleged forged order, reinstated the petitioner. Order dated 12.10.2000 (Annexure-2) does not reveal any date as to when the petitioner was reinstated and further as to when the fact of the forged order of reinstatement came into the knowledge of the respondent authorities. Further, the said order also does not reflect that any explanation, whatsoever, was called from any concerned officer as to how the petitioner was reinstated on basis of any forged reinstatement order. 20. Furthermore, the record does not reveal any show cause notice having been served on the petitioner calling upon him to furnish his explanation regarding the alleged forged reinstatement order. It is only a mere averment to the effect that the order of reinstatement was forged by the petitioner. There being no specific finding of any authority based on any enquiry, this Court is of the clear opinion that the said fact cannot be termed to be proved so as to hold the petitioner liable for the amount of salary paid to him qua the said period. 21. There being no specific finding of any authority based on any enquiry, this Court is of the clear opinion that the said fact cannot be termed to be proved so as to hold the petitioner liable for the amount of salary paid to him qua the said period. 21. Admittedly, order dated 12.10.2000 (Annexure-2) was never put to challenge by the petitioner and hence, this Court is not required to go into the same but then this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that despite the said order having been passed way back in the year 2000, no proceeding for recovery of any amount was initiated by the Department ever, that too, when there was no interim order operating in favour of the petitioner ever. 22. What can be concluded from all the above facts is that the petitioner was reinstated by the Department and he continued to work till order dated 12.10.2000 came to be passed. Even if it is assumed that the order of reinstatement was forged, the petitioner was reinstated by the Department with open eyes without even verifying the said document. Therefore, it is not solely the petitioner who could be penalized for the same. 23. In the overall facts, this Court is of the clear opinion that the amount paid to the petitioner qua his salary for the period from 11.01.1999 till 12.10.2000 is not liable to be recovered from him. So far as the embezzled amount is concerned, the same definitely is liable to be recovered and has rightly been held so vide order impugned dated 02.11.2018. 24. The present writ petition is hence partly allowed . Order impugned dated 02.11.2018 (Annexure-4) is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be entitled for release of his complete amount of PF/GPF, admissible to him as per law, after a deduction of Rs.25,539.58/- from the same. The complete amount be paid to him within a period of two months from now. 25. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.