Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kishanrao Vithalrao Bagale, was a dismissed officer employee of Bank of Baroda. He filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the bank to release his admissible gratuity. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him under Regulation 6 of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 for alleged acts of omission and commission while serving as Manager at the Amalner branch, Nagpur region, resulting in financial loss to the bank. In a duly convened enquiry, he was found guilty and dismissed from service by order dated 17 January 2011. The order recorded that due to reckless lending by the petitioner, the bank was likely to suffer financial loss of Rs.166 lakh. The appeal against dismissal was dismissed on 19 March 2012. Meanwhile, the petitioner applied for gratuity, which was rejected by the Authorized Officer on 28 May 2011 on the ground of forfeiture due to wrongful acts leading to dismissal. A subsequent order dated 15 January 2019 also rejected the claim. The petitioner challenged these orders. The court considered the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, particularly Section 4(6), which allows forfeiture of gratuity if the employee's dismissal is for misconduct causing financial loss. The court noted that the disciplinary authority had found the petitioner guilty of reckless lending causing financial loss, and the appellate authority had upheld the dismissal. Therefore, the forfeiture of gratuity was justified. The court dismissed the petition, holding that there was no merit in the challenge.
Headnote
A) Gratuity - Forfeiture - Misconduct causing financial loss - Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Section 4(6) - The petitioner, a dismissed officer of Bank of Baroda, challenged the forfeiture of his gratuity. The court held that since the petitioner's dismissal was for misconduct which caused financial loss to the bank, the forfeiture of gratuity was valid under Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The court found no infirmity in the orders rejecting the gratuity claim. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the forfeiture of gratuity of a dismissed bank employee is justified under Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 when the dismissal is for misconduct causing financial loss to the bank.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The orders rejecting gratuity are upheld.
Law Points
- Gratuity forfeiture
- Misconduct causing financial loss
- Payment of Gratuity Act
- 1972 Section 4(6)
- Bank of Baroda Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations
- 1976 Regulation 6
