Suresh Kumar Kait, J.

Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby setting aside impugned order dated 18.10.2017 of the Appellate Authority, constituted under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, vide which Administrative order dated 05.03.2016 of respondent bank forfeiting the gratuity of the petitioner has been upheld. Further seeks direction thereby directing to restore order dated 12.06.2017 of the Controlling Authority vide which the controlling Authority, constituted under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, directed the respondent "to pay the applicant a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac) as gratuity along with simple interest @ 10% per annum on the said amount as per section 7 (3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 from the date it became payable i.e. 12.10.2015 (date of compulsory retirement) till the date when it is actually paid to the applicant."

2. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner had joined the respondent bank on 21.08.1982 and had worked in various branches/offices. He was compulsorily retired from the service on 12.10.2015. Till his compulsory retirement, he had put in 33 years and 2 months of continuous service without any break whatsoever. Hence, the petitioner had become eligible to receive full gratuity, as per the provisions of section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

3. However, the petitioner was served with charge sheet dated 03.11.2014 under the provisions of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The respondent bank conducted an enquiry into the matter and the Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 06.10.2015 imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from the services of the bank with immediate effect.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not alleged to have committed any offence, much less offence involving moral turpitude, either in the charge sheet or in the orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities. He was merely charged with misconduct on the basis of allegation of certain irregularities, as enlisted in the provisions of Regulations, 1976 mentioned above.

5. To strengthen of his arguments, has relied upon the case of Jaswant Singh Gill Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Ors., (2007) 4 ALT 23 (SC) whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

"10. The Act provides for a closely neat scheme providing for payment of gratuity. It is a complete code containing detailed provisions covering the essential provisions of a scheme for a gratuity. It not only creates a right to payment of gratuity but also lays down the principles for quantification thereof as also the conditions on which he may be denied therefrom. As noticed hereinbefore, subsection (6) of Section 4 of the Act contains a non- obstante clause vis-a-vis sub-section (1) thereof. As by reason thereof, an accrued or vested right is sought to be taken away, the conditions laid down thereunder must be fulfilled. The provisions contained therein must, therefore, be scrupulously observed. Clause (a) of Sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Act speaks of termination of service of an employee for any act, willful omission or negligence causing any damage. However, the amount liable to be forfeited would be only to the extent of damage or loss caused. The disciplinary authority has not quantified the loss or damage. It was not found that the damages or loss caused to Respondent No. 1 was more than the amount of gratuity payable to the appellant. Clause (b) of Sub-section (6) of Section 4 of the Act also provides for forfeiture of the whole amount of gratuity or part in the event his services had been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part or if he has been convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude. Conditions laid down therein are also not satisfied. Termination of services for any of the causes enumerated in Sub- section (6) of Section 4 of the