Harish Kumar, J.—Heard M.N. Parvat, learned senior counsel, along with Mr. Ved Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the private respondent no.4.

2. The petitioner, who is holding the post of Chairman, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the order dated 31.08.2017 (Annexure-4) passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner-1(C)-cum- Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short “the Act of 1972”) to the extent by which the respondent no.4 has been found entitled to get the amount of gratuity as calculated by him for the entire period of his service along with the interest @10% per annum for the period in between 31.07.2010 to 05.05.2017 total amounting to Rs. 13,37,951/- within thirty days of the order. The petitioner further sought quashing of the order dated 17.09.2018 (Annexure-11) passed by the learned Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner, (C)- cum-Appellate Authority under the Act of 1972 by which the Appellate Authority has affirmed the afore-noted judgment/order dated 31.08.2017.

3. The necessary facts for appreciation of the issue is/are that the respondent no.4 was initially appointed as an officer of the Bank in the year 1981 in the then Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank now known as Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank. While he was posted as Branch Manager at Dumraon Branch of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (for brevity “the Bank”), he was found involve in various irregularities, apart from serious lapses leading to reckless financing in 677 loans in various sectors. On account of these allegations, he was placed under suspension vide order dated 12.07.2010 and the charge-sheet dated 20.07.2010 was served to him. In response thereto, the respondent no.4 submitted his reply denying the charges levelled against him. However, having found it not satisfactory, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him vide order dated 08.09.2010 and the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed.

4. It is to be noted that during the pendency of the departmental proceeding, the respondent no.4, attained the age of his superannuation on 31.07.2010. However, in view of the regulation 44 of the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2006 (for short “the Regulations, 2006”) which was prevalent at the relevant time, the departmental proceeding continued and after conclusion of inquiry, the inquiry report was submitted and most of the charges stand proved against him, resulting into major penalty of dismissal under regulation 39(1)(b)(v) of Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 (for short “the Regulations, 2010”) vide order dated 18.09.2012. Apart from the dismissal, it was also ordered that the suspension period of respondent no.4 will be treated as period not spent on duty and no pay and allowances will be payable to him, except the subsistence allowance already paid for the period of suspension.

5. It would be worth mentioning here that the respondent no.4, being aggrieved, had preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority, which came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.02.2023 and subsequent thereto, he approached before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14329 of 2013, which also stood dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent no.4 filed an application under Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 10 of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 on 27.07.2016 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C)-cum-Controlling Authority. The case was, thus, registered as 48/1(11)/2016/ALCPT and notice was issued to the Bank.

6. In compliance therewith, the Bank entered its appearance and filed a detailed reply enclosing the order of punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority, denying its liability to pay gratuity amount, apart from question of limitation and filing such application by the respondent no.4.

7