This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order
dated 10.03.2016 in Appeal No. 36/07/2015-E1 passed by the
3rd Respondent (Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity
Act) dismissing the Appeal and confirming the order dated
17.11.2014 in P.G. Application No.48 of 2013 passed by the 2nd
respondent (Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity
Act) and directing petitioner – Syndicate Bank to pay gratuity of
Rs. 9,92,935/- along with interest at Rs.3,97,174/- i.e. total
amount of Rs.13,90,109/- to the 1st respondent.
2. The brief case of petitioner bank is that the 1st
respondent, who worked in the Officer Cadre in their bank filed
an Application claiming gratuity on 29.05.2013 on the ground
that though he retired from service on 31.08.2010 on attaining
the age of superannuation, the bank served a charge sheet and
pending completion of inquiry, withheld retirement benefits and
after completion of disciplinary enquiry he was dismissed from
service vide order of punishment dated 10.01.2012, hence, he is
eligible for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for
short, ‘the Act’), but it was not paid. The 1st respondent filed
Writ Petition No. 29660 of 2012 assailing the penalty imposed
under Syndicate Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal)
Regulations, 1976 and the order dated 11.07.2012 of the
Appellate Authority confirming the punishment. This Court vide
order dated 23.08.2022 allowed the said Writ Petition, modifying
the punishment of dismissal from service to stoppage of two
increments without cumulative effect which fall due after the
date of issuance of charge sheet and consequently, the bank
was directed to pay all terminal benefits to petitioner in
accordance with Rules. Aggrieved by the said order, the bank
preferred Writ Appeal Nol. 769 of 2022, wherein the Division
Bench by order dated 19.09.2023 remanded the matter to the
bank to impose any other punishment other than dismissal/
removal against the respondent duly taking into consideration
the fact that the latter rendered 36 years of service in the
appellant bank and he was involved in solitary charge in his
entire career. Challenging the said order, the bank filed SLP
(C)No. 28162 of 2023 which was dismissed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
[ad_1]
Source link