Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144379 Reserved on : 18.08.2025 Delivered on : 22.08.2025 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 36437 of 2015 Petitioner :- Arvind Sharma Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Srivastava,Indrajeet Kumar,Sunil Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Abhishek Mishra,Anant Tewari,C.S.C.,Sanjiv Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Ajay Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri S.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for respondent-Bank. 2. This writ petition was initially filed in the year 2015 with following prayers :- “a). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.11.2014 passed by the General Manager/ Appellate Authority, Syndicate Bank, Corporate Office, Bengaluru (Karnataka) conveyed to the petitioner on 07.01.2015 as well as order dated 20.06.2013 & 05.09.2013 passed by the Assistant General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Lucknow (Annexure No.9 and 4 to this writ petition). b).Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the entire Gratuity amounts alongwith interest and Pension etc. to the petitioner in accordance with the Bank Employees Service Rules so that the justice may be done; otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. 1 of 4 c). Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. This Court has passed following order on 29.07.2025:- “Impleadment Application No. 28/2025 1. Heard. 2. Application is allowed. 3. Let necessary impleadment be carried out within 72 hours. Order on Writ 1. Sri S.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for petitioner, on basis of specific instructions, is not pressing the prayer to quash order of termination and he is pressing only the prayer for paying gratuity amount which has been forfeited. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents for some time. 3. Let notice be issued to newly impleaded party-respondent returnable at an early date. 4. Steps be taken within a week. 5. Dasti in addition. 6. List this case for further hearing on 18.08.2025 at 12.00 PM. ” 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court is considering a limited issue of forfeiture of entire gratuity amount. On basis of proved charges in disciplinary proceedings, petitioner was found guilty of doing repeated an act being prejudicial to the interest of bank. The charges of fraudulent withdrawal of amount from various bank accounts of customers i.e. accounts of more than 35 customers. The relevant provision is sub- section 6 of Section 4 of Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972 and for reference, the same is reproduced hereinafter :- “(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), - (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 2 of 4 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 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.” 5. Learned counsel for parties have placed reliance on various judgments and the Court takes note of a recent judgment passed by Supreme Court in Western Coal Fields Ltd. Vs. Manohar Govinda Fulzele , 2025 INSC, 233 and 2025 SCC OnLine SC 345 that if the proved misconduct falls within the wide definition of moral turpitude, the gratuity can be withheld partially or wholly. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that on basis of proved charges since the bank has not lodged any FIR even if misconduct falls within the four corners of moral turpitude withholding of entire gratuity amount would not be reasonable. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent- bank submitted that proved charges were serious which were against trust of the customers upon the bank as such the order to withhold entire gratuity amount is justified. 8. I have considered the above submissions and perused the record as well as the nature of proved misconduct. The Court also takes note that no FIR was lodged in present case against petitioner. The petitioner has served about 34 years in the 3 of 4 bank as well as that no specific reason was assigned while passing a punishment of forfeiture of the whole amount of gratuity of Rs. 8,94,266/- by only giving a reference that misconduct committed by petitioner would constitute an offence involving moral turpitude which is not a sufficient reason to forfeit whole amount of gratuity. 9. On basis of given set of circumstances, it may be a case of partial forfeiting of amount of gratuity and accordingly taking note of above referred mitigating factor, impugned order is modified that only 25 percent of gratuity amount would be forfeited and accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 22.08.2025 P. Pandey 4 of 4 Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad