- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40375 WP No. 13252 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 13252 OF 2017 (L-PG) BETWEEN: R.SATISH, S/O. K.RAMASWAMY IYER, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, MANAGER, SYNDICATE BANK, RAGIONAL OFFICE, CHENNAI R/O.NO.210, PREMIER ELITE, APARTMENT, 5TH MAIN ROAD, OPP.108, GANAPATHI TEMPLE, 2ND STAGE, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.T.KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY/ DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER(CENTRAL), SHRAM SADAN, 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN, 2ND PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU-22. 2. THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY/ ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER(CENTRAL), SHRAM SADAN, 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN, 2ND PHASE, TUMKUR ROAD, YESHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU-22. Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40375 WP No. 13252 of 2017 3. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE/CORPORATE OFFICE, J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU-560002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, CGC FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. T.P.MUTTANHA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR HEARING, THIS DAY AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.G.T.Kumar., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.T.P.Muthanna., counsel for respondent No.3 have appeared in person. 2. The short facts are these: It is said that the petitioner entered into service of the Canara Bank in the capacity of a Clerk. During his tenure, promotions were given to him. He came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings for an act of misconduct. The inquiry officer conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted a report holding that the charges are proved. Based on the said report, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice furnishing the copy of the inquiry report. The petitioner submitted his reply to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40375 WP No. 13252 of 2017 the same. The bank simultaneously made a complaint to the Central Bureau of Investigation, which registered a FIR against the petitioner even earlier to the show cause notice. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 24.01.2009 passed an order of punishment i.e., dismissed the petitioner from service and the same was communicated to the petitioner on 09.02.2009. Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appeal came to be dismissed on 28.07.2009. As against the said order, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.8641/2010. As things stood thus, the petitioner filed an application before the Controlling Authority seeking payment of gratuity. The Controlling Authority vide order dated 23.09.2015 allowed the claim petition and directed the third respondent to pay the gratuity of Rs.6,49,712/- along with 10% simple interest for the delayed period between 10.02.2009 to the actual date of payment. Aggrieved by the order of the Controlling Authority, the third respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 31.08.2016 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40375 WP No. 13252 of 2017 allowed the appeal and set-aside the order of the Controlling Authority. Under these circumstances the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) CHITRA SINGH Vs. PRATHMA UP GRAMINA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICER AND ANOTHER IN W.A.NO.1974/2021 DISPOSED OF ON 23.03.2021 (Allahabad High Court). (2) UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS. SH D.C.CHATURVEDI AND ANOTHER reported in 2022 LIVE LAW (DEL) 241. (3) CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION VS. SRI.G.C.BHAT AND ANOTHER IN W.P.NO.102635/2024 DISPOSED OF ON 10.01.2025 (High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench). - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40375 WP No. 13252 of 2017 4. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 5. The short point that requires consideration is whether the order of the Appellate Authority requires interference. 6. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require reiteration. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates to payment of gratuity. Suffice it to note that the petitioner came under a disciplinary inquiry proceedings and was visited with an order of punishment i.e., dismissed from service. The petitioner questioned the order of dismissal before this Court in W.P.No.8641/2010 and this Court vide order dated 19.07.2018 dismissed the Writ Petition confirming the order of dismissal and the same has attained finality. What is required to be considered is the petitioner who is an dismissed employee of a Bank is entitled to receive the gratuity amount. The petitioner is governed by the Syndicate Bank (Officer's) Service Regulations, 1979. Regulation 46(1) contemplates that every officer shall be eligible for gratuity on: a) retirement, b) death, c) disablement rendering him unfit for further service as - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40375 WP No. 13252 of 2017 certified by a medical officer approved by the Bank; d) resignation after completing ten years of continuous service; or e) termination of service in any other way except by way of punishment after completion of ten years of service. This means, an officer whose service is dispensed with by way of a penalty will not be eligible to receive the gratuity under the Regulations. Furthermore, the provisions of Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act also disentitles the petitioner from receiving the gratuity amount as he was dismissed from service and the same has attained finality. Apart from disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Bank, the Bank has also set the criminal law in motion by filing a criminal complaint. The Appellate Authority extenso referred to the material on record and rightly set-aside the order of the Controlling Authority. I have no hesitation in concluding that the petitioner being a dismissed employee is not entitled for payment of gratuity. No grounds are made out to interfere with the order of the Appellate Authority. The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40375 WP No. 13252 of 2017 Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decisions referred to supra. I do not think that the law is in doubt. Each decision turns on its own facts. The present case is also tested in the light of the aforesaid decisions. 7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Because of dismissal of the Writ Petition, pending interlocutory applications if any are disposed off and interim direction if any stands discharged. SD/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN/KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71