Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
Rohit W. Joshi, J, ROHIT W. JOSHI
General Manager (HRM), Bank of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Prakash Vishnu Shinde – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. moral turpitude defined requires no criminal conviction (Para 10 , 22) |
| 2. forfeiture requires proof of quantifiable loss (Para 12) |
| 3. natural justice must be upheld in forfeiture processes (Para 27 , 29 , 31) |
| 4. petition allowed, forfeiture deemed unsustainable (Para 33) |
JUDGMENT :
Rohit W. Joshi, J.
Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
2. Respondent No.1 was in employment with the petitioner-bank as Regional Manager, Zonal Office, Goa. A departmental enquiry was initiated against him by issuing charge-sheet dated 30/10/2013. He was placed under suspension on 07/12/2013. While the enquiry was pending, respondent No.1 attained the age of superannuation on 31/12/2013. However, the enquiry continued even after his retirement and punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on respondent No.1 vide order dated 29/04/2016.
3. The controversy in the present petition pertains to the claim of gratuity of respondent No.1. The petitioner had forfeited gratuity of respondent No.1 vide order dated 29/04/2016. Respondent No.1 approached the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for short) challenging th
Termination of employment for alleged misconduct involving moral turpitude does not automatically justify gratuity forfeiture without proven loss or prosecution.
1. Departmental proceedings cannot be continued and a penalty cannot be imposed after an employee has ceased to be in service, in the absence of a specific provision for continuation of the proceedin....
(1) Forfeiture of gratuity may be directed to the extent of damage or loss so caused or destruction of property belonging to employer.(2) Provisions of Gratuity Act have superiority over all other pr....
Forfeiture of gratuity can only occur upon conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction for an offence involving moral turpitude, as established in Union Bank of India v. C. G. Ajay Babu and Other....
Proper notice, quantification, and opportunity to be heard are mandatory for forfeiting gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; failure to comply invalidates the forfeiture.
Forfeiture of gratuity for misconduct involving moral turpitude is permissible without a criminal conviction, emphasizing the discretion of the appointing authority in determining the extent of forfe....
Gratuity is a statutory entitlement not subject to withholding after superannuation absent explicit legal grounds for forfeiture, emphasizing employee protection under the Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
