Chattisgarh High Court
The Chairman And Managing Director vs The Appellate Authority Under The … on 8 July, 2025
1
Digitally signed
by RAMESH 2025:CGHC:31259
KUMAR VATTI
Date: 2025.07.14
15:02:31 +0530 NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPL No. 43 of 2019
1 - The Chairman And Managing Director Bank Of Maharashtra, Lokmangal,
1501 Shivaji Nagar, Pune Maharashtra 411005 Civil And Revenue District
Pune (Maharashtra) Police Station Shivajinagar, District Pune (Maharashtra)
2 - The Zonal Manager, Bank Of Maharashtra, Zonal Office, Chawla
Complex, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 492001 Civil And Revenue
District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Police Station Devendra Nagar, Raipur,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1 - The Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972, And
The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) D/6, Adarsh Society, Sector-1,
Avanti Vihar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 492001 Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur .
Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2 - The Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972, And
The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) D/6, Adarsh Society, Sector-1,
Avanti Vihar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 492001 Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur
Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3 - Prafull Chandra Naik R/o C/o A.K. Bose A-69, Near Shiv Mandir Agyeya
Nagar, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 495001 Civil And Revenue Distt. Bilaspur
Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur , District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Petitioners : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Arun Kumar Bose, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
08/07/2025
1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
10(1) To kindly, call the records from the court below.
10(2) To kindly, quash the Order dated 30/05/2013 in Case no.
PGA 02/2013 passed by the Appellate Authority, and the
2Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur, Chhattisgarh
[Annexure-P 1] and Order dated 09/11/2012 in Case no. RP-48
(11)/2012-ALC passed by The controlling Authority Under
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and The Assistant Labour
Commissioner (C), Raipur (C.G.) [Annexure-P 2].
10(3) To kindly, remanded the case of the Respondent No. 3
back to the Petitioners in order to decide the same reasonably
after providing proper opportunity of hearing to Respondent No. 3
on the point of loss suffered by the Petitioner bank due to the
actions of Respondent No. 3 and on the point of forfeiture of the
entire gratuity amount.
10(4) To kindly, allow the present writ petition in favour of the
Petitioners.
10(5) To kindly, direct the Appellate Authority, and the Regional
Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur, Chhattisgarh not to
release the Gratuity Amount plus interest [‘10,61,416 (Rupees
Ten Lakhs Sixty One Thousand and Four Hundred Sixteen only)]
deposited with it by the Petitioners to Respondent No. 3 till the
final disposal of the present writ petition if in case it has yet not
been released to Respondent No. 3.
10(6) To kindly, direct the Respondent No. 3 to deposit the
Gratuity amount plus interest with the Petitioners if the same has
been released to him by Appellate Authority and the Regional
Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur, Chhattisgarh in case the
present writ petition is allowed in favour of the Petitioners.
10(7) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the
interest of justice may also be provided.
2. Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners would submit that petitioner No. 1 is Nationalised Bank.
Respondent No. 3 was an Officer of respondent-bank and at the
relevant time he was working to the post of Senior Manager at Zonal
Officer at Raipur. He would submit that respondent No. 3 was found
guilty of charges of not taking all possible steps to ensure and protect
the interest of the bank and to discharge duties with utmost integrity,
honesty, devotion and diligence as stated in article of charge dated
07.06.2011. He would further submit that respondent No. 3 admitted
the allegations made against him that in 14 loan accounts, an amount
3
of more than 200 lakhs plus unapplied interest was put in jeopardy. He
would contend that the Disciplinary Authority inflicted punishment of
compulsory retirement vide order dated 28.09.2011. He would further
contend that thereafter respondent No.3 moved an application before
the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for
short ‘Act of 1972’) for payment of gratuity and it was allowed vide
order dated 09.11.2012. He would further submit that the petitioners
preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Act of 1972
and it was dismissed vide order dated 31.05.2013. Dr. Pande would
submit that there is admission on the part of respondent No.3 that he
admitted all 14 charges and penalty of compulsory retirement was
inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority. He would submit that the
Controlling Authority as well as Appellate Authority under the Act of
1972 ought to have considered this aspect. He would pray to quash
both the orders.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Arun Kumar Bose, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No. 3 would oppose. He would submit that the order of
termination or any finding with regard to willful omission, negligence or
causing loss to the property belonging to employer have not been
inflicted against respondent No.3, therefore, the Controlling Authority
as well as Appellate Authority rightly allowed the application moved by
respondent No. 3.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents.
5. Sections 4 (6) of the Act of 1972 reads as under:-
“4. Payment of gratuity.-
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(1),-
4
(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.”
6. Bare reading of this provision would make it clear that if services of an
employee have been terminated and he has been found guilty of any
omission, negligence or he has caused loss to the property belonging
to the employer in such a situation order to withhold the amount of
gratuity can be passed by the employer to extent of loss caused by
such employee to the property belonging to the employer.
7. In the present case, there is no such finding recorded by the
Disciplinary Authority in its order whereby penalty of compulsory
retirement was inflicted. Respondent No. 3 admitted all the alleged
charges levelled against him and consequently penalty of compulsory
retirement was inflicted. As there is no punishment of termination of
services or findings with regard to any loss caused to the property
belonging to the employer, therefore, the contention made by Dr.
Pande cannot be accepted.
5
8. Taking into consideration the provisions of Section 4 (6) of the Act of
1972; the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority; further findings
recorded by the Controlling Authority and affirmed by the Appellate
Authority, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders
passed by the Controlling Authority as well as Appellate Authority under
the Act of 1972.
9. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
vatti
[ad_1]
Source link