HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 23409 OF 2016

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 10.03.2016 in Appeal No. 36/07/2015-E1 passed by the 3^rd Respondent (Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act) dismissing the Appeal and confirming the order dated 17.11.2014 in P.G. Application No.48 of 2013 passed by the 2nd respondent (Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act) and directing petitioner – Syndicate Bank to pay gratuity of Rs. 9,92,935/- along with interest at Rs.3,97,174/- i.e. total amount of Rs.13,90,109/- to the 1^st respondent.

2. The brief case of petitioner bank is that the 1st respondent, who worked in the Officer Cadre in their bank filed an Application claiming gratuity on 29.05.2013 on the ground that though he retired from service on 31.08.2010 on attaining the age of superannuation, the bank served a charge sheet and pending completion of inquiry, withheld retirement benefits and after completion of disciplinary enquiry he was dismissed from service vide order of punishment dated 10.01.2012, hence, he is eligible for gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, ‘the Act’), but it was not paid. The 1st respondent filed Writ Petition No. 29660 of 2012 assailing the penalty imposed under Syndicate Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 and the order dated 11.07.2012 of the Appellate Authority confirming the punishment. This Court vide order dated 23.08.2022 allowed the said Writ Petition, modifying the punishment of dismissal from service to stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect which fall due after the date of issuance of charge sheet and consequently, the bank was directed to pay all terminal benefits to petitioner in accordance with Rules. Aggrieved by the said order, the bank preferred Writ Appeal Nol. 769 of 2022, wherein the Division Bench by order dated 19.09.2023 remanded the matter to the bank to impose any other punishment other than dismissal/ removal against the respondent duly taking into consideration the fact that the latter rendered 36 years of service in the appellant bank and he was involved in solitary charge in his entire career. Challenging the said order, the bank filed SLP (C)No. 28162 of 2023 which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

In due obedience to the order in the Writ Appeal, the Disciplinary authority passed revised punishment order dated 23.01.2024 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement as envisaged under Regulation 4(h) of Canara Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. The Disciplinary Authority has also given finding that though the accounts are settled under OTS/written off, the bank is still exposed to financial loss of Rs.44.64 lacs due to his gross misconduct. The said order is not questioned till now. However, the employee preferred Writ Petition No. 9134 of 2024 assailing the inaction of respondents in releasing the retirement benefits subsequent to issuance of order dated 23.01.2024 by the 4^th respondent therein.

The 1^st respondent filed counter stating that Regulation 46(1) of Service Regulations which deals with eligibility of an officer to receive gratuity as per internal rules of the bank; his claim for gratuity is not based on the service Regulations but as per the Payment of Gratuity Act. According to this respondent, the benefit of gratuity is a terminal benefit eligible to all retired employees. He was allowed to retire on the due date of superannuation, but his terminal benefits were withheld pending completion of disciplinary case. The inquiry continued thereafter and penalty order was issued by the disciplinary authority on 10.01.2012; forfeiture of gratuity either towards recovery of loss or on account of alleged offences involving moral turpitude as part of the penalty if awarded have to be specified by the disciplinary authority. Section 4(6)(b)(ii) specifies discretionary powers of forfeiture