Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

f) Hence, the applicant has constrained to knock the door of this Tribunal, challenging the order dated 08.12.2016. 4. On the other hand, no counter affidavit has been filed from the side of the respondents though the several opportunities were granted to them.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that pendency of judicial proceeding/criminal proceeding cannot be a ground to detain the release of gratuity /pensionary benefits of the government employee particularly when it is pending since long time i.e. 26 years and also as per the provision of the Gratuity Act, 1972, there is a bar for payment of gratuity to the employee whose service has been terminated for an act of negligence or damage to the property belonging to the employer. The applicant has no concern with the store work and as such, no liability can be fixed against him. The present criminal case relates to two individuals and the department/RPF cannot in any manner fixed liability of any loss on the applicant. In fact, there is no case set up against the applicant in the inquiry report dated 15.12.1999.