Back
2012 Supreme(AP) 158
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
GHULAM MOHAMMED & NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
The Regional Manager, Indian Bank & Another
Versus
J. Siva Sankaram & Others
WRIT APPEAL NO.1429 OF 2003
Decided On : 10-02-2012
For the Petitioners:Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, Advocate.
For the Respondents:V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, Advocate.
Headnote:
Indian Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 - Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1979 - Income-tax Act, 1961 - Rule 2(1) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 294 - Civil Application – Writ appeal – Indian Bank in writ petition challenging correctness of judgment and order passed by learned single Judge who allowed writ petition filed by respondent – Employee of said bank – Writ petitioner has been retired from service of the appellant – bank on as a measure of punishment. By then, he has already put in 34 years of service to the bank. However, he was not granted gratuity. Ultimately, his representations for payment of gratuity have been turned down on on the premise that he was compulsorily retired from service for acts, which amounted to offence involving in moral turpitude and hence he is not eligible to receive gratuity case of the 1st respondent – writ petitioner was that as per regulations of the respondent Indian Bank, payment of gratuity can be denied only to such employees who are either removed or dismissed from service and not for those who have been retired from service case of the appellant – bank is that respondent – employee has admitted his misdemeanor unconditionally was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement in accordance with Indian Bank Officer Employees Regulations this is not one such case where employee officer has retired from service on attaining age of superannuation – Learned single Judge has noticed that gratuity payable to an officer can be wholly forfeited if only service of such officer has been terminated for his riotous or disorderely conduct or any other act of violence on his part or if officer is dismissed for misconduct or his services have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude provided that such offence is committed by him in course of his employment – It is held by learned single Judge that excepting in above contingent situations, payment of gratuity cannot be forfeited in any other case – Held, Court has had occasion to consider in detail the various circumstances in which gratuity would be liable to forfeiture for misconduct of a particular nature. It was laid down in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Workmen and others object of Having a gratuity scheme is to provide a retiring benefit to workmen who have rendered long and unblemished service to the employer and thereby contributed to the prosperity of the employer, and it is, therefore, not correct to say that no misconduct however grave, may not be visited with forfeiture of gratuity. Misconduct could be of three kinds technical misconduct which leaves no trail of indiscipline misconduct resulting in damage to the employers property which might be compensated by forfeiture of gratuity or part and serious misconduct such as acts of violence against the management or other employees or riotous or disorderly behavior in or near the place of employment, which, though not directly causing damage, is conducive to grave indiscipline first should involve no forfeiture, the second may involve forfeiture of the amount equal to the loss directly suffered by the employer in consequence of the misconduct and the third will entail forfeiture of gratuity due to the workman – Appeal is dismissed.
Ghulam Mohammed, J.
This writ appeal is preferred by the respondent – Indian Bank in the writ petition challenging the correctness of the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge who allowed the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent – employee of the said bank.
During the currency of the writ petition, the 1st respondent – employee/officer of the bank died. His legal representatives have been permitted to prosecute the writ petition.
The 1st respondent – writ petitioner has been retired from service of the appellant – bank on 8.6.1979 as a measure of punishment. By then, he has already put in 34 years of service to the bank. However, he was not granted gratuity. Ultimately, his representations for payment of gratuity have been turned down on 28.1.1981 on the premise that he was compulsorily retired from service for acts, which amounted to offence involving in moral turpitude and hence he is not eligible to receive gratuity. The case of the 1st respondent – writ petitioner was that as per regulations of the respondent-appellant/Indian Bank, payment of gratuity can be denied only to such employees who are either removed or dismissed from service and not for those who have been retired from service. The case of the appellant – bank is that the 1st respondent – employee/officer has admitted his misdemeanor unconditionally. Hence, he was awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement in accordance with the Indian Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Therefore, this is not one such case where the employee officer has retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation. Learned single Judge has noticed that gratuity payable to an officer can be wholly forfeited if only the service of such officer has been terminated for his riotous or disorderely conduct or any other act of violence on his part or if the officer is dismissed for misconduct or his services 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. It is therefore, held by the learned single Judge that excepting in the above contingent situations, payment of gratuity cannot be forfeited in any other case. In the instant case, the officer – employee has been handed down major punishment of compulsory retirement from service. It is not the same as dismissal from service. Hence, the writ petition has been allowed.
We have heard Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the appellant – bank and Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the respondents.
Sri Satyanarayana would strenuously contend that the respondent – employee has admitted his guilt and hence misconduct attributed to him has been established. Consequently major punishment of compulsory retirement has been imposed on him. When once an officer – employee is guilty of conduct which is otherwise grave and heinous in nature, he is not entitled for payment of gratuity. Though, learned counsel for the appellant referred to us Regulation 46 of the Indian Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1979, in support of his contention that gratuity need not be paid to an officer – employee whose services have been terminated by way of punishment, but, however, when his attention was drawn to the fact that the aforementioned regulations have been brought into force with effect from 1.7.1979 and the appointed date also defines the said date viz., 1st April, 1979 in Regulation 3(a) of the Indian Bank Officers Service Regulations, 1979 and consequently they will not have any applicability to the case on hand inasmuch as the officer employee in the instant case has been retired compulsorily from service on 8.6.1979 which is a date anterior to 1.7.1979, the learned counsel for the appellant did not press the contention raised by him in this regard any further. Even otherwise, since the employee officer concerned in the instant case has been retire
