[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Dr.Yellappa K.K Pura vs The Director (Administration) on 8 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:19456
WP No. 48686 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION No. 48686 OF 2015 (S-KSRTC)
BETWEEN:
DR. YELLAPPA K.K PURA
S/O YELLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
WORKING AS DEPUTY CHIEF
TRAFFIC MANAGER (NOT IN SERVICE)
NEKRTS GULBARGA
GULBARGA DISTRICT
R/O NO.3066/11
1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS
NEAR NIRMAL CONVENT SHCOOL
GOKULAM PARK GOLKULM
MYSORE
Digitally signed
by BELUR ...PETITIONER
RANGADHAMA (BY SRI. H M MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE)
NANDINI
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. THE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION)
(APPELLATE AUTHORITY)
KSRTC,
CENTRAL OFFICE,
K H ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560027
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:19456
WP No. 48686 of 2015
HC-KAR
KSRTC,
CENTRAL OFFICE,
K H ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560027
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:
(I) CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS;
(II) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
01.06/07.2015 PASSED BY RESPONDENT
No.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-C, AS ARBITRARY,
ILLEGAL AND VOID;
(III) ISSUE A CONSEQUENTIAL DIRECTION TO
RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE THE GRATUITY
AMOUNT ALONG WITH INTEREST AS
PROVIDED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 FOR 30
YEARS SERVICE RENDERED BY HIM, IN
RESPONDENT OFFICE AND ISSUE SUITABLE
ORDERS & ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDER,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:19456
WP No. 48686 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed assailing the order passed by 2nd
respondent in terms of which the entire gratuity payable
to the petitioner is forfeited.
2. It is an admitted fact that domestic enquiry was held
against the petitioner in respect of certain misconduct.
The charges are established and the petitioner was
dismissed from service.
3. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order of
dismissal from service and appeal also came to be
dismissed. Petitioner's challenge to the aforementioned
said orders in writ Petition No.42869/2015 is unsuccessful
and order of dismissal is confirmed.
4. Since, the petitioner was dismissed from service
exercising power under Section 4(6)(1)(b)(ii) of The
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Act, 1972), the
respondent/employer forfeited the entire gratuity
amount.
NC: 2026:KHC:19456
HC-KAR
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the
employer is not entitled to forfeit the gratuity amount as
no loss is caused to the Corporation on account of
misconduct alleged and proved. Assuming that any
misconduct is proved, then also the forfeiture cannot
exceed the damage caused or loss suffered. Thus, he
would urge that the respondent should not have forfeited
the entire gratuity amount.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent would refer to the
judgment of the Apex Court in WESTERN COAL FIELD
LIMITED vs MANOHAR GOVINDA FULZELE1 wherein
it is held that the employer is entitled to forfeit the
gratuity amount in case the misconduct results in
termination.
7. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the
Bar and perused the record.
8. Section 4(6)(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, 1972 provides for
forfeiture of gratuity either wholly or partially in the event
MANU/SC/0224/2025
NC: 2026:KHC:19456
HC-KAR
of termination of services of the employee for any act
which constitutes moral turpitude provided the act is
committed in the course of employment.
9. From the said provision, it is apparent that loss or
damage to the employer is not the criterion to forfeit the
penalty. The only criterion is the misconduct should
constitute moral turpitude. The demand for bribe by the
petitioner and receipt of the same certainly amounts to a
misconduct constituting moral turpitude.
10. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that
the Authority is justified in forfeiting the gratuity amount.
However, it is required to be noticed that when the
petitioner misconducted, he had already put in sufficient
service and considerable gratuity amount had been
accumulated in his account. The Court also asked the
counsel for the respondent/Corporation as to whether any
cases involving moral turpitude were pending against the
petitioner.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent on instructions
submitted that in all six cases involving certain
NC: 2026:KHC:19456
HC-KAR
irregularities were held against the petitioner and in
addition, the case involved in Writ Petition
No.42869/2015 is one case which constituted moral
turpitude.
12. Since, the present case is the only case constituting
moral turpitude, the Court is of the view that forfeiting
entire gratuity amount would be extremely harsh and
disproportionate penalty on the petitioner.
13. The provision referred to above under the Act, 1972 does
not mandate full forfeiture of the gratuity amount
payable. The expression used is 'the gratuity payable to
an employee may be wholly or partially be forfeited'. In
appropriate cases, the employer can forfeit the gratuity
amount partially. The Court is of the view that this is one
such case which warrants partial forfeiture. Thus, the
Court is of the view that forfeiture of 50% of the gratuity
amount payable would be an appropriate penalty.
14. The respondent - Corporation is entitled to forfeit only
50% of the gratuity amount payable and the remaining
NC: 2026:KHC:19456
HC-KAR
50% of the gratuity amount shall be released in favour of
the petitioner.
15. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed in part;
(ii) The impugned order dated
01.06/07.2015 passed by respondent
No.2, vide Annexure 'C', is partly set
aside.
(iii) The respondent - Corporation shall
forfeit only 50% of the gratuity
amount payable to the petitioner;
(iv) Remaining 50% of the gratuity
amount payable to the petitioner shall
be released by the respondent -
Corporation in favour of the
petitioner, within two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
(v) It is also made clear that the liability
to pay interest on 50% of the gratuity
amount payable would accrue only
after expiry of 60 days referred to
NC: 2026:KHC:19456
HC-KAR
above and the liability to pay interest
at the rate contemplated under the
The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972
would commence only after expiry of
60 days referred to above.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
RK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
