The statutory nature of employment regulations and the precedence of statutory provisions over non-statutory rules in determining entitlement to gratuity and retirement benefits.

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. The petitioner seeks release of withheld gratuity and additional retirement benefits together with compound interest from the date of his retirement till receipt of payment, consequent upon his superannuation.

2. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was an employee of Bank of Baroda. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. A punishment was imposed by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner accepted such punishment. The disciplinary authority punished the petitioner by reducing three stages in time scale with cumulative effect from the date of the order of the disciplinary authority. The petitioner retired on September 30, 2013. The petitioner is entitled to receive gratuity and retiral benefits subsequent to his retirement. The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority does not involve any money claim. The order of the disciplinary authority does not require the petitioner to pay any amount to the bank. A criminal proceeding instituted against the petitioner is pending. Even if, the petitioner is convicted in such criminal proceedings the same will not result in any financial liability of the petitioner towards the bank. Consequently, there is no valid reason why the gratuity and retiral benefits receivable by the petitioner can be withheld by the bank. The bank has no ground to withhold the gratuity and retirement benefits receivable by the petitioner. In support of his contentions learned Advocate for the petitioner relies upon (Jaswant Singh Gill v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors., (2007) 1 SCC 663), (Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Anr. v. Taraknath Sengupta & Ors., (2010) 3 CalHN 81 (Cal)) and an unreported decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal No. 8251 of 2018 (Union of India & Ors. v. C.G. Ajay Babu & Anr.) dated August 14, 2018.

3. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the Bank of Baroda (Employee's) Pension Regulation, 1995 governing the employment of the petitioner with the Bank of Baroda has no manner of application. The provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 have overriding effect over the Regulations of 1995 framed by the Bank of Baroda governing the employment of the petitioner. He refers to Sections 13 and 14 of the Act of 1972 and submits that, gratuity cannot be withheld by the bank. Consequently, he seeks a direction upon the bank to disburse the gratuity and retiral benefits along with interest.

4. Learned Advocate appearing for the banks submits that, the petitioner was found to have indulged in serious fraudulent activities warranting the bank to initiate departmental proceedings and lodge a criminal complaint. The criminal proceedings are pending. The departmental proceedings resulted in an order of punishment. Although, the order of punishment passed in the departmental proceeding does not require the petitioner to make good any loss that may have been caused by the petitioner to the bank, the fact that there is a criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner, is sufficient for the bank to withhold the retiral benefits, in terms with the Regulations of 1995. According to him, gratuity can at best be a right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Such a right is subject to reasonable restrictions. The Regulations of 1995 are statutory regulations having the force of law. The petitioner cannot have an unfettered right to receive gratuity. The right to receive gratuity can be circumscribed by statutory rules. The petitioner is governed by the services rules relating to employees of Bank of Baroda. The Regulations of 1995 allow the bank to withhold the gratuity receivable by an employee in the event of pendency of any judicial proceeding. Any judicial proceeding will include a criminal proceeding. Admittedly, a criminal proceeding is pending against the petitioner. Therefore, the bank is within its rights to withhold the gratuity. In suppo