IMPORTANT POINT
Gratuity rights under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 cannot be forfeited without a formal determination of liability against the employee during their lifetime, and mere allegations are insufficient for such deductions.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This writ petition has been instituted by the widow of a deceased employee of the Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited, Lucknow (for short, 'the Corporation'), praying that a mandamus be issued directing the respondents to refund the deducted sum of Rs.5,62,745/-out of the gratuity payable to her for her deceased husband's services, along with interest at the admissible rate.

2. The petitioner's husband was a Patrolman, a Class-IV employee, appointed against a regular vacancy on 01.04.1976, after following the procedure prescribed. He was promoted to the post of a Technician Grade-II (for short, 'TG-II') in the office of the Executive Engineer, Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Bulandshahr. In the year 2007, the petitioner's husband was TG-II In-charge in the Division of the Executive Engineer and while still in harness, he passed away on 24.07.2007. The respondents say that some receipt book was issued to the deceased employee for the purpose of ensuring collection of revenue from consumers. The deceased employee, after collecting the dues of the Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (for short, 'the Distribution Corporation') from consumers, deposited it in the Distribution Corporation's account. Later on, the Executive Engineer issued a letter dated 17.05.2007 to the petitioner's husband, directing him to submit his explanation and return the receipt books, and something called an RR Statement etc. The details of receipt books, with their number and date of issue, were given in the letter issued to the deceased employee. The petitioner's husband deposited the revenue receipt books on 17.05.2007. The Executive Engineer proceeded to issue a letter dated 22.05.2007 to the deceased employee, informing him that a total sum of Rs.6,65,985/-was recovered by him on the basis of receipts available from consumers, but a sum of Rs.1,26,576/-alone was deposited in the Distribution Corporation's account. The balance sum of Rs.5,40,467/-be deposited, failing which penal action would be taken against him.

3. The allegation levelled against the deceased employee was that some receipt books for revenue collection were issued to the employee to facilitate collection on behalf of the Distribution Corporation, but when the receipt books were returned, the discrepancy, as aforesaid, in the sum of money collected in revenue from consumers and that deposited, was detected. On these allegations, the Assistant Accounts Officer got an FIR lodged against the deceased employee on 31.05.2007. On the selfsame allegations, the deceased employee was placed under suspension vide order dated 01.06.2007. Surprisingly, the order of suspension does not say if it is passed pending or in contemplation of inquiry or pending criminal investigation, though it says that the employee is being placed under suspension finding him prima facie guilty of embezzling a sum of Rs.5,40,467/-.

4. It is the petitioner's case that the allegation against the petitioner's husband, about non-deposit of the entire revenue collected from consumers, is baseless and he did not commit any embezzlement of the Distribution Corporation's moneys. It is averred that no inquiry in this regard was conducted or the liability determined in any departmental proceedings against the deceased employee. It was only an allegation and nothing more. The FIR, that was registered against the petitioner's husband, did not lead to any charge-sheet being filed against him in Court. He died on 24.07.2007, and the Investigating Officer submitted a Final Report on 02.06.2009. It was accepted by the Court on the same day. It must be remarked that the Final Report was submitted as the accused was dead and no proceedings could be taken.

5. On 27.06.2007, the Superintending Engineer wrote a letter to the Executive Officer saying that the sum of Rs.5,40,467/-, which appears prima facie embezzled by the employee, be recovered from the petitioner's husband and departmental proc