Gratuity cannot be forfeited unless the termination arises from misconduct causing financial loss, further requiring conviction for moral turpitude for such an action to be justified.

ORDER :

1. Though this petition is listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsels for both parties, the matter is take up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner - bank is before this Court questioning the order 31.5.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PG Act, 1972' for short), whereby the Appellate Authority confirmed the order dated 24.3.2021 passed by the Controlling Authority, Bellary, directing the petitioner - bank to pay the gratuity amount of Rs.13,76,326/- to the respondent no.2 - workman alongwith interest @ 10% per annum from 20.6.2018 till the date of actual payment.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

The Respondent No.2 - workman joined the services of erstwhile Tungabhadra Gramin Bank as a Clerical Trainee on 13.10.1984 and subsequently promoted as Assistant Manager on 28.2.2013. His service conditions were governed by Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2013 ('Pragathi Regulations, 2013' for short) and as per the said Regulations, the post of 'Assistant Manager' is classified under the category of Group-A Officers.

3.1 The Respondent No.2 - workman while working at Mudugal branch from 11.5.2013 to 2.5.2015, committed serious misconduct of fraudulently debiting the accounts of the customers without their knowledge. The petitioner - bank issued charge sheet for commission of such misconduct against Respondent No.2 on 4.6.2016. Subsequently, departmental enquiry was conducted against Respondent No.2 in respect of charge sheet.

3.2 The Enquiry Officer, after holding enquiry found Respondent No.2 to be guilty of the charges and submitted his findings to the Disciplinary Authority. The Respondent No.2 submitted his reply to the findings of the Enquiry Officer, which was placed before the Disciplinary Authority.

3.3 The Disciplinary Authority taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence adduced during the enquiry proceedings, concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and imposed punishment of dismissal on the ground that Respondent No.2 had committed gross misconduct.

3.4 Aggrieved by the order of punishment of dismissal, the Respondent No.2 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal.

3.5 In view of rejection of the appeal, Respondent No.2 was not paid gratuity in terms of Regulation 72(2)(e) of Pragathi Regulations, 2013.

3.6 Aggrieved by non-payment of gratuity, the Respondent No.2 filed an application before the Controlling Authority under the provisions of the PG Act, 1972. The Controlling Authority, after taking into consideration the claim application, statement of objections filed by the petitioner - bank and submissions, allowed the application of Respondent No.2 and directed the petitioner - bank to pay a sum of Rs.13,76,326/- to Respondent No.2 alongwith interest @ 10% per annum from 20.6.2018 till the date of actual payment.

3.7 Aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority, the petitioner - bank filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which on reconsideration dismissed the appeal relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union Bank of India and others vs. C.G. Ajay Babu and another , (2018) 9 SCC 529 .

3.8 The petitioner - bank is before this Court in the present writ petition questioning the order dated 31.5.2023 passed by the Appellate Authority and the order dated 24.3.2021 passed by the Controlling Authority. 4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondents.

4.1 Learned counsel for petitioner - b