The main legal point established is that a dismissed employee's entitlement to gratuity is determined by the relevant service regulations and the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. The petitioner is a ‘dismissed’ officer employee of the Bank of Baroda. He has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court on 2nd March, 2021 seeking a direction on the bank to release admissible gratuity in his favour.

2. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Regulation 6 of Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter “the 1976 Regulations” for short) for alleged acts of omission and commission while he was discharging duty as Manager, Amalner branch, Nagpur region, resulting in financial loss to the bank. In a duly convened enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of all the charges and was ultimately dismissed from service by an order of the disciplinary authority dated 17th January, 2011. The order of the disciplinary authority clearly records that because of reckless lending by the petitioner, the bank was likely to suffer financial loss to the tune of Rs. 166 lakh. The order was carried in appeal by the petitioner. The appellate authority, however, did not find any reason to disagree with the order of the disciplinary authority and, therefore, proceeded to dismiss the appeal vide order dated 19th March, 2012. In the meanwhile, after dismissal from service, the petitioner had applied for gratuity. The claim for gratuity was rejected by the Authorized Officer of the bank by an order dated 28th May, 2011. The reason for forfeiture of gratuity was attributed to the wrongful acts of the petitioner which ultimately led to his dismissal. The said order dated 28th May, 2011 and a subsequent order dated 15th January, 2019 refusing to revoke the former order are under challenge in this writ petition.

3. As can be noticed from the above narration of facts, the petitioner has instituted this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution more than 10 years after the claim for gratuity was initially rejected by the bank.

4. Mr. Syed, learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter “the Act” for short), to contend that the petitioner is entitled to gratuity and that the bank had erred in refusing his claim. Our pointed attention is drawn to section 4 of the Act together with the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Rajan Sandhi P. vs. Union of India and Another, (2010) 10 SCC 338 in support of the submission that the bank erroneously refused gratuity to the petitioner.

5. Having heard Mr. Syed, we find no reason to call upon the respondents to answer.

6. We propose to decide the petitioner’s claim on merits although we could have dismissed the writ petition only on the ground of unexplained delay.

7. Gratuity has always been regarded as a reward for good, efficient and faithful service for a considerable period of time. Where, however, an employee is dismissed from service for proved misconduct, question of rewarding him with payment of gratuity does not arise unless, of course, the service regulations so provide.

8. For the purpose of an appropriate decision on this writ petition, we had the occasion to look into the 1976 Regulations under which the petitioner was proceeded against as well as the provisions of the Act.

9. In terms of regulation 4(j) of the 1976 regulations, an order of dismissal could be passed by the disciplinary authority upon the charges levelled against the delinquent officer employee being proved and it is provided that such dismissal shall ordinarily be a disqualification for a future employment. We have not come across any express provision in the 1976 Regulations relating to forfeiture of gratuity upon an order of dismissal being passed. At the same time, Mr. Syed has not shown us any provision of any other service regulations of the bank which entitles a dismissed employee to receive gratuity. He has, undoubtedly, made the Act the sheet anchor of the petitioner’s claim.

10. In the absence of any provision entitling a dismissed officer empl