JUDGMENT :

R. Vijayakumar, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to allow the Writ Appeal and quash the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.19880 of 2014, dated 23.12.202.)

1. This Writ Appeal has been filed by the petitioners to quash the order, dated 23.12.2020 passed in Writ Petition in W.P.No.19880 of 2014.

2. The respondents in the Writ Petition are the appellants herein. The Writ Petitioner was working as a Chief Manager in the Appellants' Bank and he retired from service on 31.01.2013. The Writ Petitioner was settled all the dues except a sum of Rs.2,84,000/- towards gratuity amount. The Appellants' Bank has passed an order on 02.02.2013 withholding the gratuity amount to the tune of Rs.2,84,000/- in lieu of overdues in 14 salary loans sanctioned by the Writ Petitioner while he was working as a Chief Manager in Adambakkam West Branch.

3. Challenging this order of withholding the gratuity amount, the Writ Petitioner filed W.P.No.19880 of 2014. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition on the grounds that the Appellants' Bank is not entitled to withhold the gratuity amount even on the ground of pendency of enquiry and the Appellants' Bank have no power to withhold the gratuity amount. On the above said finding, the Writ Petition was allowed with a direction to the Appellants' Bank to settle the balance amount of Rs.1,80,228/- along with statutory interest within a period of twelve weeks. The said order is under challenge in the present Writ Appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Writ Petitioner had attained the age of superannuation on 31.01.2013 and the impugned order of the withholding the gratuity amount was passed on 02.02.2013. On 20.03.2014, the Writ Petitioner has addressed a letter to the first respondent, authorizing the bank to adjust the overdue loan amount from the gratuity amount and he was agreeable to receive the balance amount. According to the Appellants' Bank, based upon this letter of this Writ Petitioner, the third appellant has passed an order releasing the balance gratuity amount on 20.03.2014. Once the Writ Petitioner has given an undertaking to withhold the gratuity amount, now he cannot turn around and demand the balance gratuity amount.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent/Writ Petitioner contended that though he addressed the letter to the first appellant on 20.03.2014, he has addressed another letter on 07.04.2014, retracting the contents found in his letter, dated 20.03.2014. The learned counsel for the Appellants' Bank admitted that such a letter has to be received by the Bank on 07.04.2014.

6. Admittedly, the Writ Petitioner had retired on 31.01.2013. The Writ Petitioner was permitted to retire by the Appellants' Bank without reserving any right to initiate any disciplinary proceedings. In fact no disciplinary proceedings were pending on the date of his retirement. Hence, it is clear that the Appellants' Bank is not entitled to recover or withhold any gratuity amount without even conducting enquiry and finding that the Writ Petitioner is guilty of any delinquency. The letter, dated 20.03.2014 though authorized the Bank to withhold the gratuity amount, the same has been retracted on 07.04.2014. Hence, unless the Writ Petitioner has found to be guilty and any one of the circumstances as contemplated under Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, are made out he cannot be deprived of the gratuity. Of course, the Apex Court in the following cases categorically held that gratuity can be adjusted / withheld, depending upon the circumstances of each case.

(i) Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited vs. Rabindranath Choubey, reported in AIR 2020 SC 2978;

39. To sum up, my conclusion to the question is as under:

Que. 1-Whether it is permissible in law for the employer to withhold the payment of gratuity even after the employee has attained his superannuation from service because