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.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. This pronouncement has been done through hybrid conferencing.

Facts in W.P.(C) 4486/2021

2. The Respondent herein - Mr. D.C. Chaturvedi, was an employee of the Petitioner Bank-Union Bank of India (hereinafter "Bank"). A charge sheet was issued against him on 7th November, 1994, alleging that loans were issued by him accommodating certain parties which caused losses to the Bank. A show cause notice was issued and, thereafter, an Inquiry Officer was appointed. The report of the Inquiry Officer held the Respondent/Employee (hereinafter "Employee No.1") guilty of the charges levelled against him. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority of the Bank vide order dated 21st August, 1998 imposed the penalty of dismissal on Employee No.1. The relevant extract of the dismissal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is set out hereinbelow:

"The inquiry record proves that three tractor loans and several crop loans were raised in fictitious names. The complaints of the real persons are on the records denying availment of loans in their names. It further strengthened the allegations that such tractor loans were adjusted within a period of 3 to 4 months after sanction. Had the borrowers so much of funds to repay the Bank loans of Rs. 1,30,000/- to Rs. 1,70,000/- within a period of 3 to 4 months then there was no need for them to avail loans after going through the cumbersome procedure. However, the fact is that such loans were adjusted within 3 to 4 months instead the longer period of say 5 to 7 years generally taken for repayment of such loans. The loan applications/papers had number of irregularities and were not complete in all respects. Before sanctioning such loans, had Shri Chaturvedi taken due care as regards establishment of identity of borrowers as also the completion of formalities/papers/documents, the true things would have come to light. However, he did not do so but sanctioned loans in fictitious names in haste without even thinking that the huge funds of the Bank were being put to stake. Considering the vital issue from various angles, I am of the view that Shri Chaturvedi did not discharge his duty with integrity. Once the aspect of integrity is under cloud, such employee cannot be said to be honest and therefore I am of the opinion that he has failed to perform his duties with honesty and integrity.

Considering the nature and gravity of the misconducts proved against Shri Chaturvedi, I am of the opinion that the punishment of dismissal, if imposed on Shri Chaturvedi, would be just and proper. In pursuance of the powers vested in terms of Regulation 7 of the Union Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, I pass the following order:

ORDER

Shri D. C. Chaturvedi be and is hereby dismissed from the service of the Bank with immediate effect."

3. In the appeal filed against the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority of the Bank went through the entire record, examined the charges and upheld the penalty imposed. The operative portion of the Appellate Authority's order dated 30th December, 1999 is set out below:

"...I am, therefore, of the opinion that the punishment of dismissal from the services of the Bank with immediate effect imposed on the Appellant by the Disciplinary Authority by holding him guilty of all the charges levelled against him including that of failure to discharge his duties with honesty and integrity is just and proper to meet the ends of justice and I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Similarly, the co