Back
T. S. SIVAGNANAM, HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
State Bank Of India – Appellant
Versus
Ratan Kumar Rababi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. - This intra court appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated July 30, 2018 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 4229 (W) of 2018.
2. The short question that arises for consideration in the instant appeal is whether the appellant/employer was justified in withholding the payment of gratuity of the respondent no. 1/ employee even after his superannuation from service on the ground of pendency of disciplinary proceedings.
3. The facts in a nutshell that are necessary for the consideration of the above issue are as follows:-
The respondent no. 1 (for short 'the employee') joined the service of the State Bank of India (for short 'the employer') as a cashier cum clerk cum typist and he ultimately held the post as Chief Manager (audit). During his posting at Kolkata, local head office, he was served with a chargesheet on 22.10.2011. The respondent employee retired from service on superannuation with effect from 30.11.2011. after completion of the departmental enquiry, the disciplinary authority proposed to impose major penalty of 'removal from service' under Rule 67(1) of State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 (for short 'SBIOSR') a
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....
Gratuity may be withheld pending disciplinary proceedings, dependent on the final outcome of those proceedings under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
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
