The main legal point established in the judgment is that gratuity cannot be withheld if the compulsory retirement did not cause financial loss to the employer, as per the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the State Bank of Patiala Employees Gratuity Regulations, 1970.

JUDGMENT

G. S. Sandhawalia, J. - The present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dated 10.07.2008 (Annexure P-10) whereby the claim for payment of Gratuity has been rejected on account of the fact that the petitioner had misutilized his official position while in service of the Bank as Deputy Manager between the period from 11.07.2004 to 28.01.2006.

2. Resultantly, it was held that the acts of the petitioner whereby he had misutilized his position and borrowed money from the customers and allowed debts on different dates on account of unclear balance of one Lakhwinder Singh, had cast a shadow on his honesty and integrity and therefore, was an offence of moral turpitude. Thus, while falling back on section 4 (6) (b) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, the 1972 Act'), the amount had been withheld by placing reliance upon Regulation No.12 (2) of the State Bank of Patiala Employees Gratuity Regulations, 1970, on the ground that the services were terminated as a punishment due to misconduct.

3. The present petition has been opposed by the Bank on the ground that the order of compulsory retirement had been passed on 21.09.2007 (Annexure P-1), which was upheld in appeal on 28.11.2007 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, CWP-3827-2014, which had been filed against the said order, had been dismissed on 29.04.2014 (Annexure P-4) on account of delay and latches, which order had been upheld in appeal before the Division Bench on 24.07.2014 (Annexure P-5) in LPA-1175- 2014.

4. It is, accordingly, submitted by Mr.Mehtani that the present writ petition has been filed at a very belated stage, as such and therefore, the petitioner cannot now claim the gratuity amount.

5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the interest of the Bank can be protected qua the interest element, which can be paid towards the Gratuity amount, for the delay, as such, as the petitioner cannot gain for the delay in not approaching for his legal redressal against the impugned order dated 10.07.2008 (Annexure P-10), which suffers from legal infirmity. Merely because on an earlier occasion, he had been challenging the order of his compulsory retirement, which has been upheld before this Court, would not, as such, take away his right to challenge the order dated 10.07.2008, whereby his entitlement for gratuity has been withheld, as it is a separate cause of action. Therefore, the argument raised by Mr. Mehtani that the earlier litigation is, as such, binding upon the petitioner, would not detain this Court for much time.

6. The sole legal issue which, thus, arises is that once the petitioner has been compulsorily retired and no financial loss had been caused to the Bank, the Bank cannot withhold the gratuity amount. A perusal of the order of compulsory retirement dated 21.09.2007 (Annexure P-1) would go on to show that on account of the dealings of the petitioner while in service, it was found that it amounted to gross indiscipline and insubordination and that he had misused his official position for demanding and accepting financial advantages. Thus, on account of the shadow cast on his honesty and integrity, the petitioner had not stood upto the quality and quantity of devotion, honesty and integrity as is expected from a Bank Officer.

7. Thus, he was compulsorily retired, in terms of Regulation 67(h) of the State Bank of Patiala (Officers) Service Regulation, 1979. Relevant portion of the order of compulsory retirement reads as under:

"4. It is thus apparent that Shri Rehanoo has misused his official position for demanding and accepting financial advantages and gratifications from the Bank's constituents and others, either for his personal use and/or for arranging credit facilities as per their requirements, which clearly cast a shadow on his honesty and integrity, sufficiently resulting in loss of confidence in him as he has not stood up to the quality and quantity of devotion, honesty and integrity expected