Back
2017 Supreme(Megh) 32
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
S.R. Sen, J.
Shri. Pranesh Biswas - Appellant
Vs.
Union of India - Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 394 of 2013
Decided On : 06-06-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.C. Chakrawarty, Sr. Advocate and Ms. M. Mahanta, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mrs. T. Yangi, GA.
The judgment establishes the principle that dismissal for acts involving moral turpitude can lead to the forfeiture of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and the denial of entitlement to the employer's contribution to the provident fund as per relevant rules.
Headnote:
Dismissal - Provident Fund and Gratuity - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Section 4(6)(b)(ii); SBI Employees' Provident Fund Rules, Rule 24
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former employee of State Bank of India, sought release of his provident fund and gratuity after being dismissed from service due to alleged irregularities and misappropriation of funds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's dismissal for premature withdrawal of funds and involvement in financial irregularities constituted moral turpitude, leading to the forfeiture of his gratuity and the bank's contribution to his provident fund.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's entitlement to provident fund and gratuity following his dismissal, and the application of relevant provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and SBI Employees' Provident Fund Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which allows for the forfeiture of gratuity in cases of employee termination for acts involving moral turpitude. Additionally, Rule 24 of SBI Employees' Provident Fund Rules was applied to deny the petitioner's entitlement to the bank's contribution to his provident fund.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner's claim for release of provident fund and gratuity was denied based on the findings and legal provisions cited.
JUDGMENT :
Sr. Sen, J.
Heard Mr. S.C. Chakrawarty, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. M. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mrs. T. Yangi, learned counsel for the respondents/Bank.
2. The brief fact of the petitioner's case in a nutshell is that:
"The petitioner was initially appointed as a clerk-cum-cashier in the State Bank of India on 01.09.1983 and promoted as a Scale 1 officer on 01.08.1997. Subsequently a departmental proceedings was held against him and he was given the penalty of dismissal from service on 08.08.2007. However, neither in the enquiry report was there any conclusive findings of any financial loss caused to the bank by the petitioner, nor was the petitioner given any penalty for forfeiture of any of his monetary dues for the period of service rendered by him. In November 2010, the petitioner began corresponding with the bank for payment of amounts due to him on account of gratuity and the bank's contribution to his provident fund. The bank refused to pay the amount on account of the bank's contribution to the petitioner's provident fund citing the bank rule which actually vests the bank with the discretion to pay the same. As for gratuity, the bank issued a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner who duly filed the same, but without following any procedure of departmental proceedings and without granting any consideration to the petitioner's show cause, an order was made for forfeiture of his gratuity. Hence the petitioner is compelled to file this instant writ petition."
3. The learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined the service as a clerk-cum-cashier in the State Bank of India on 01.09.1983. On 01.08.1997 he was promoted as a Scale 1 officer. In 2004-2005 he was posted as the officiating Branch Manager of the Songsak Branch, State Bank of India, Garo Hills, Meghalaya.
During his service as officiating Branch Manager, allegation was brought against him that there were some irregularities in the Songsak Branch, State Bank of India and misappropriation of Rs. 2,34,000/- (Rupees two lakhs thirty four thousand) only. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was put under suspension and thereafter, he was terminated. On the basis of the enquiry, the bank arbitrarily did not release his entire provident fund as well as the gratuity for which, he made a representation, but the same was not considered. Hence, this instant petition for a direction to release his entire provident fund and gratuity.
4. In reply to the submission advanced by the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents/Bank submitted that a thorough enquiry was conducted and after enquiry, it was found that the petitioner has withdrawn certain premature deposits. The learned counsel also further submits that there were 10(ten) allegations out of which all allegations were found proved against him.
5. After hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel and after going through the show cause reply at Annexure-2 dated 15th October, 2005 of the writ petition (attached a copy in English) wherein, it is stated at Para 03-05 that the petitioner himself admitted that, "In the A/C opening form the name was Shir. Malen Sangma so, in the STDR the name was changed to Shri. Malen Sangma. During payment, Malen Sangma stated that his daughter met an accident and he has to arrange for her medical treatment and if we allow he will collect the payment in the afternoon. Under the circumstances, on humanity ground I have collected the payment for Malen Sangma from the cash counter which was handed over to him on his arrival in the evening of that day." At Para 06 the petitioner also states in his reply that, "In all these cases, application for premature payment of the depositors were attached with the relative STDRs and that all the payments were received by the depositors themselves." At Para 07 the petitioner also admitted that, "The err
