1 2025:CGHC:31259 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 43 of 2019 1 - The Chairman And Managing Director Bank Of Maharashtra, Lokmangal, 1501 Shivaji Nagar, Pune Maharashtra 411005 Civil And Revenue District Pune (Maharashtra) Police Station Shivajinagar, District Pune (Maharashtra) 2 - The Zonal Manager, Bank Of Maharashtra, Zonal Office, Chawla Complex, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 492001 Civil And Revenue District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Police Station Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - The Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972, And The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) D/6, Adarsh Society, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 492001 Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur . Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972, And The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) D/6, Adarsh Society, Sector-1, Avanti Vihar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 492001 Civil And Revenue Distt. Raipur Police Station Civil Lines, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Prafull Chandra Naik R/o C/o A.K. Bose A-69, Near Shiv Mandir Agyeya Nagar, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 495001 Civil And Revenue Distt. Bilaspur Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur , District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioners : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Arun Kumar Bose, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08/07/2025 1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10(1) To kindly, call the records from the court below. 10(2) To kindly, quash the Order dated 30/05/2013 in Case no. PGA 02/2013 passed by the Appellate Authority, and the Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.07.14 15:02:31 +0530 2 Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur, Chhattisgarh [Annexure-P 1] and Order dated 09/11/2012 in Case no. RP-48 (11)/2012-ALC passed by The controlling Authority Under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and The Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Raipur (C.G.) [Annexure-P 2]. 10(3) To kindly, remanded the case of the Respondent No. 3 back to the Petitioners in order to decide the same reasonably after providing proper opportunity of hearing to Respondent No. 3 on the point of loss suffered by the Petitioner bank due to the actions of Respondent No. 3 and on the point of forfeiture of the entire gratuity amount. 10(4) To kindly, allow the present writ petition in favour of the Petitioners. 10(5) To kindly, direct the Appellate Authority, and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur, Chhattisgarh not to release the Gratuity Amount plus interest [‘10,61,416 (Rupees Ten Lakhs Sixty One Thousand and Four Hundred Sixteen only)] deposited with it by the Petitioners to Respondent No. 3 till the final disposal of the present writ petition if in case it has yet not been released to Respondent No. 3. 10(6) To kindly, direct the Respondent No. 3 to deposit the Gratuity amount plus interest with the Petitioners if the same has been released to him by Appellate Authority and the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Raipur, Chhattisgarh in case the present writ petition is allowed in favour of the Petitioners. 10(7) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice may also be provided. 2. Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that petitioner No. 1 is Nationalised Bank. Respondent No. 3 was an Officer of respondent-bank and at the relevant time he was working to the post of Senior Manager at Zonal Officer at Raipur. He would submit that respondent No. 3 was found guilty of charges of not taking all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the bank and to discharge duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence as stated in article of charge dated 07.06.2011. He would further submit that respondent No. 3 admitted the allegations made against him that in 14 loan accounts, an amount 3 of more than 200 lakhs plus unapplied interest was put in jeopardy. He would contend that the Disciplinary Authority inflicted punishment of compulsory retirement vide order dated 28.09.2011. He would further contend that thereafter respondent No.3 moved an application before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short 'Act of 1972') for payment of gratuity and it was allowed vide order dated 09.11.2012. He would further submit that the petitioners preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Act of 1972 and it was dismissed vide order dated 31.05.2013. Dr. Pande would submit that there is admission on the part of respondent No.3 that he admitted all 14 charges and penalty of compulsory retirement was inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority. He would submit that the Controlling Authority as well as Appellate Authority under the Act of 1972 ought to have considered this aspect. He would pray to quash both the orders. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Arun Kumar Bose, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 would oppose. He would submit that the order of termination or any finding with regard to willful omission, negligence or causing loss to the property belonging to employer have not been inflicted against respondent No.3, therefore, the Controlling Authority as well as Appellate Authority rightly allowed the application moved by respondent No. 3. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Sections 4 (6) of the Act of 1972 reads as under:- “4. Payment of gratuity.- (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),- 4 (a) the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused; (b) the gratuity payable to an employee [may be wholly or partially forfeited]- (i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or (ii) if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment.” 6. Bare reading of this provision would make it clear that if services of an employee have been terminated and he has been found guilty of any omission, negligence or he has caused loss to the property belonging to the employer in such a situation order to withhold the amount of gratuity can be passed by the employer to extent of loss caused by such employee to the property belonging to the employer. 7. In the present case, there is no such finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in its order whereby penalty of compulsory retirement was inflicted. Respondent No. 3 admitted all the alleged charges levelled against him and consequently penalty of compulsory retirement was inflicted. As there is no punishment of termination of services or findings with regard to any loss caused to the property belonging to the employer, therefore, the contention made by Dr. Pande cannot be accepted. 5 8. Taking into consideration the provisions of Section 4 (6) of the Act of 1972; the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority; further findings recorded by the Controlling Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the orders passed by the Controlling Authority as well as Appellate Authority under the Act of 1972. 9. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti