Gratuity cannot be forfeited for employee misconduct without specifically quantifying the financial loss caused to the employer. Any forfeiture under statutory provisions requires adherence to natural justice, ensuring the employee has an opportunity to contest the extent of the loss before it is deducted from retiral benefits.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging orders dated 15^th November, 2018 passed by the controlling authority in Application No. 48(7)/2017/ALC-S and 18^th October, 2019 vide 48/(10)/2019.E.Dy.CLC(C) passed by the appellate authority.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that as per Clause 72 (2) (e) of the Banks Service Regulation being the Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Banks Service Regulation that every officer shall be eligible for the gratuity except for reasons of being terminated by way of punishment. In this case, The Respondent No. 3 (Sri. Tapan Kumar Dey) has been admittedly terminated by way of punishment and as such as per the said regulation he is debarred to receive any Gratuity from the said Bank. The Petitioner Bank through its General Manager, issued the administrative order vide no. A&V/39/2014-2015/629/F-T.Dey on 04/08/2014 wherein the Respondent No. 3 (Sri. Tapan Kumar Dey) since dismissed was awarded with the punishment that is "Dismissal” which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment as per Clause 39.1 (B) (V) of the Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank Service (Officers and Employees) regulations, 2010: and “Forfeiture of the Gratuity” of the Applicant Sri. Tapan Kumar Dey as per clause 72 (e) of the Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank Service (Officers and Employees) regulations, 2010.

3. During the tenure of the service of the Respondent No. 3 (Sri.Tapan Kumar Dey), in pursuance to a grave offence, a Charge Sheet was issued against him being Charge Sheet No. A&V / 37 / 2012-2013 / 327 / F-T.Dey dated 19/09/2012. A disciplinary proceeding was also pending against him at that time. Under that circumstances the Petitioner Bank represented by its Competent Authority being the Chairman, invoked Regulation 45 of the Uttarbanga Kshetriya Gramin Bank Service (Officers and Employees) Regulations, 2010 which led to a rejection of the receipt of the allowances as laid down therein under in the said regulation. As such this allegation being proved and the punishment been drawn against him, he has been given his retiral benefits within the purview of the said Act. Admittedly the Respondent No.3 (Sri Tapan Kumar De) never ever challenged his dismissal / award of punishment. He has not approached any higher forum against the said punishment. As such till date the said Termination is standing unchallenged Admittedly again he never ever disputed the Petitioner / Bank's payment of the retiral benefits.

4. It is stated that after a lapse of 3 years, the Respondent No. 3 is barred from challenging the actions taken by the Petitioner Bank particularly when he has already accepted the actions of the bank without challenging the same before the higher forum. Admittedly again, he had approached the Respondent No. 2 after a lapse of 3 years.

5. The petitioners further state that the Respondent No. 3 (Sri.Tapan Kumar Dey) has been awarded a punishment by following a proper departmental procedure. This departmental procedure has not been challenged till date. So that deems to be correct. The order passed in that procedure has not been challenged and therefore it