By Court-Being aggrieved by the order dismissing the writ petition in W.P.(L) No.4673 of 2008 dated 22.6.2011, the appellant-Bharat Coking Coal Limited has preferred this appeal.

2. The respondent was an employee of the appellant and was working as Personnel Officer at Mahuda Coal Washery. While functioning as Senior Welfare Officer at Bhagabandh Colliery of BCCL, the respondent was trapped and arrested by CBI Dhanbad for demanding and accepting illegal gratification from a workman on 8.10.1985 for allotment of quarter. The respondent was placed under suspension by an order dated 11.10.1985. A criminal case being RC No.19/1985 was registered by Central Bureau of Investigation, Dhanabd against the respondent before the Special Judge CBI, Dhanbad and by judgment dated 21.6.1996, the respondent was held guilty of charges levelled against him under Section 161 IPC and also under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was also imposed a fine of Rs.500/-. The appeal preferred by the respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1996 (R) was dismissed by this Court and in SLP (Cri) No. 4689 of 2003, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not interfere with the finding of conviction but the sentence was reduced to one year.

3. After conviction of the respondent by the Special Judge CBI, Dhanbad, disciplinary action was initiated against the respondent and by order dated 26.4.2000, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Disciplinary Authority, Coal India Ltd. dismissed the respondent from service. The respondent filed an application in Form 'N' before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the same was registered as Application No.36(26)/2005-E-4 and the Controlling Authority by its finding dated 22.8.2007 held that since no separate order forfeiting the gratuity has been passed, the respondent is entitled to gratuity amounting to Rs.2,63,963/-

4. The Management preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Being aggrieved by the order not awarding interest on the gratuity amount in terms of the provisions contained in Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, the respondent-employee also filed appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority held that the “provisions of the Act stipulate that while forfeiting the gratuity amount on the ground of moral turpitude, the employer has to mention whether gratuity amount is to be forfeited wholly or partially but in the instant case, the management-Company has not passed such order mentioning specifically whether the gratuity amount is to be forfeited wholly or partially.” Pointing out that no separate order forfeiting the gratuity amount was passed by the Management, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the Management and directed the appellant for payment of gratuity amount of Rs.2,63,963/-. The appeal preferred by the employee was also dismissed.

5. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant filed writ petition being W.P.(L)No.4673 of 2008. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding that merely because the respondent was involved in an offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, that does not automatically mean that without any order of forfeiture, it will be presumed that the employer is entitled to forfeit the gratuity of the employee and that there ought to have been a separate order for forfeiture of gratuity and on those findings the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

6. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the appellant-Management (Western Washery Zone of Bharat Coking Coal Limited) has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration the fact that on being convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, forfeiture of gratuity of an employ