IMPORTANT POINT
.

Kuldip Singh, J.

1. Petitioner was working as a Senior Manager with Central Bank of India, Karnal. On 23.11.2012, he was suspended and a departmental inquiry was initiated. On 21.1.2013, four charges were levelled against him by respondent no.2 as under:-

Charge No.1

Mr.Kandhal, Sr.Manager (U/S) while working at B/O GT Road Karnal opened Account No.3203436525 in the name of Mr.Anil without ensuring the proper procedure.

Charge No.2

Mr.P.R.Kandhal Sr.Manager (U/S) while working at branch Office GT Road Karnal have authorised transfer entries from inoperative account No.1472333138 of Bhagalpur Branch to the credit of newly opened accounts No.2303436525, 3210553397 and 3210517643 made by Sh.Satish Rohilla (ID No.77357) without taking precautions which are required abnormal amount of inter-branch transaction in a newly opened account which resulted in a fraud.

Charge No.3

Mr.P.R.Kandhal, Sr.Manager (U/S) while working at B/O G T Road, Karnal have passed a self drawn cheque of Sh.Arun without observing the laid down norms in a newly opened account which resulted in to fraudulent transaction.

Charge No.4

Mr.Kandhal, Sr.Manager (U/S) GT Road Karnal while working as Branch Manager, Branch Office, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt processed, recommended and disbursed the credit facilities to M/s Balaji Industries to the tune of Rs.83.80 lacs as term loan and Rs.12.00 lacs as C/C without observing the laid down norm of credit policy.”

2. One D.K.Gosain, Chief Manager, Branch Office, Panchkula was appointed as an inquiry officer. After conducting the inquiry, he submitted the inquiry report on 22.4.2013, in which, it was reported that charge nos.1 and 3 are “not proved”, whereas charge no.2 stands “proved” and charge no.4 is “partly proved”. Thereafter, after issuing the show cause notice and obtaining the reply, the punishment order dated 13.5.2013 (Annexure P7) was passed, vide which, the punishment of compulsory retirement under Regulation 4(h) of the Central Bank of India Officers Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (in short, 'Regulations 1976') was imposed upon the petitioner with the further clarification that the petitioner will not be entitled to difference of full wages and subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension and he will not get any increment for the period he remained under suspension. Subsequently, administrative order (Annexure P8) of the same in this regard was passed. Subsequently, a show cause notice dated 16.9.2013 (Annexure P12) was issued to the petitioner for forfeiture of his gratuity under Section 4(6) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (in short, 'Gratuity Act 1972') read with Central Bank of India Employees' Gratuity Fund Rules, 1975) (in short, 'Gratuity Fund Rules 1975') intimating him that on account of irregularities committed by the petitioner, which also resulted into financial loss to the bank, necessary disciplinary proceedings were initiated resulting into compulsory retirement order dated 13.5.2013. Now, in accordance with Rule 7(6) of the Gratuity Act 1972 read with Gratuity Fund Rules 1975, the gratuity payable to the petitioner is liable to be forfeited. The petitioner was given 15 days to reply the said notice dated 16.9.2013 (Annexure P12). Petitioner submitted the reply (Annexure P13). After considering the same, the impugned order dated 8.10.2013 (Annexure P14) was passed, vide which, it was held that the loss likely to be suffered by the bank in the fraud case of branch office GT Road Karnal is Rs.20 lacs and in account of Bala Ji Industries Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt is Rs.86.1 lacs. Therefore, under Rule 4(6)(a)/4(6)(b) of Gratuity Act 1972 and Rule 12 of Gratuity Fund Rules 1975 the gratuity of the petitioner is forfeited. Petitioner is aggrieved by the said order dated 8.10.2013 (Annexure P14), vide which, his gratuity was forfeited. It is claimed that the said order is illegal on the various grounds.

3. In the written statement, holding of inquiry and imposing of p