21.08.2026 Court No.13 Item No.2 AP MAT 773 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Jnanankur Saha Vs. Union of India and Ors. Mr. Sugata Shankar Roy … For the Appellant. Mr. Siddhartha Bhattacharya Mr. Subit Majumdar … For the Union of India. Mr. Shiv Mangal Singh Ms. Madhu Shaw Ms. Anjali Mishra … For the Respondent No.4. Mr. Arijit Chakraborti Mr. D. Basak Ms. Swati Kumari Singh … For the Respondent No.6. Mr. Soumya Majumder, Senior Advocate Mr. Indranil Munshi … For the Respondent No.7. 1. The instant appeal is directed against a judgement and/or order dated 30th March, 2026. By the said judgement the Single Bench set aside the concurrent findings of the first authority and the appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 2. The facts relevant to the case as narrated by the counsel for the appellant are that his client was a Director of the Institution of Engineers (India). The said institution is stated to have constituted by Royal Charter issued by the Queen of England sometime in the year 1935. The institute promotes the interests of engineers in general and also appoints and conducts several arbitrations 2 between Government and private bodies. In fact, several Government contracts nominate the Institution of Engineers as the arbitral tribunal. 3. Disciplinary proceedings came to be instituted against the appellant by the Institution of Engineers for acts and omissions in connection with a deposit with a nationalized bank. 4. The appellant was found guilty of insubordination and gross misconduct and was dismissed from service on 29th April, 2021. In the order of dismissal, the employer had specifically stated that the appellant would not be entitled to any gratuity and the same would stand forfeited. Consequently no gratuity was paid to the appellant. 5. The appellant approached the authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, inter alia, alleging that no notice was given to him for the purpose of withholding in part or in entirety the gratuity payable to him as a benefit of service. 6. Both the first and the appellate authority under the Act of 1972 have held that the procedures under the Act not having been followed and hence ordered gratuity to be release in favour of the appellant. The said orders are challenged by the employer/Institution of Engineers before a Single Bench of this Court which passed the impugned order setting aside the findings of both the first and the appellate authorities. 3 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that concurrent findings of two authorities under the Act of 1972 could not have been interfered with by the Single Bench. It is also argued that there are factual errors recorded in the order of the Single Bench, inter alia, that the petitioner/appellant was named in an FIR in a criminal proceedings instituted against him by the employer. 8. It is further submitted that against the final order in the disciplinary proceedings the appellate authority did not give a hearing to the appellant. It is also submitted that the enquiry report was not supplied to him. 9. This Court, however, finds that the disciplinary proceedings have not been challenged by the appellant and the final order in the disciplinary proceedings passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are conclusive. 10. It is now well-settled that a major penalty of dismissal imposed on an employee by an employer would imply forfeiture of entire service of the employee. 11. The disciplinary authority in its final order has held that the misconduct found against the appellant is grave enough to entitle the employer to forfeit the gratuity payable to the appellant as a whole. Therefore, in the absence of any challenge to such final order which also merged in the order of the appellate authority, who confirmed the same, the appellant could not have 4 maintained any proceedings before the authorities under the Act of 1972. 12. The finding of the first and second authorities, alleging non-supply of ‘Form M’ and in conducting proceedings under ‘Form O’ was, therefore, itself ex facie illegal. The Single Bench, therefore, rightly interfered and set aside the proceedings instituted by the appellant against the respondents under the Act of 1972. 13. In the light of the above, the order of the Single Bench calls for no interference. 14. MAT 773 of 2026 is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, CAN 1 of 2026 is also disposed of. 15. The dismissal of the instant appeal shall, however, not prevent or bar the appellant from challenging the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him by the respondent employer / Institution of Engineers. 16. All questions arising out of or relating to such proceedings and arguments shall be deemed to have been kept open for the appellant employee to agitate in any challenge to such disciplinary proceedings. All findings and/or observations of the Single Bench in respect of any orders passed in the disciplinary proceedings or the criminal proceedings involving the appellant, if any, or the proceedings under the PMLA Act shall be deemed as irrelevant to the instant proceeding. It shall be open to the appellant to challenge such criminal proceedings or proceedings under the PMLA Act including disciplinary 5 proceedings taking all points available to him in law notwithstanding any observations made by the Single Bench in this regard in the impugned order. 17. The amount paid by the respondent employer/ Institution of Engineers (India) as a pre-condition for the appeal before the Appellate Authority and under the Act of 1972 shall be refunded to and paid back to the respondent employer/ Institution of Engineers (India) within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order. 18. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) (Anuj Singh, J.)