Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kumar Verma vs Punjab & Sind Bank on 25 September, 2024
CWP-6227-2005
2005 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(222) CWP-6227-2005
Date of Decision:- 25.09.2024
.09.2024
Surinder Kumar Verma
......Petitioner
Versus
Punjab and Sind Bank and Anr.
......Respondentss
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN
****
Present: Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma,, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kuldeep Joshi, Advocate for the respondent
respondents.
****
ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the order dated 20.10.2004 (Annexure P
P-9) passed by the Appellate
Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the
written statement has not been filed in the present case. However, a perusal of
the order sheet demonstrates that the Bank has been represented by the
respondents since 26.02.2007 and has been seeking time to file a response, but
none has been filed the written statement.. Ultimately, the matter was admitted
CWP-6227-2005
on 29.01.2008, with liberty granted to the petitioner to file an application for
early hearing of writ after the conclusion of the criminal proceedings initiated
against him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has
been acquitted in that criminal proceedings by virtue of the judgment passe
passed
d
by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bathinda, on 05.01.2011 (Annexure
(Annexure-PA),
PA),
and thereafter, the present case has been pending.
4. The short issue involved in the present case is that the petitioner
relied upon the
the communication dated 18.06.200
18.06.2003 (Annexure P-5),
5), whereby the
authorities had admitted the petitioner's claim for payment of gratuity but, on
account of his pending criminal case, the same was not released to him and
therefore,
herefore, he submits that the same should be released with interest. Learned
counsel
unsel for the petitioner further submits that the authorities under the
Payment of Gratuity Act,
Act 1972 have ousted the petitioner solely on account of
the pendency of his criminal case. However, he submits that, in fact, the
Controlling Authority passed the order dated 05.09.20
05.09.2003 (Annexure P-6)
6) in
favor of the petitioner, holding him entitled to payment of gratuity amount
under Section 7(7) of Act.
Act. However, on an appeal filed by the respondent
respondent--
Bank,, the same was allowed vide order dated 20.10.2004 (Annexure P-9),
9),
holding that the petitioner is not entitled to the gratuity amount.
5. Learned counsel for the
he petitioner further submits that the
Appellate Authority
A erred in allowing the appeal of respondent, solely on the
ground that the petitioner was compulsory retired, which constitute
constitutes a major
CWP-6227-2005
penalty and criminal cases
case against the petitioner were also pending at that
time.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent argues that the orders passed
by the appellate authority is entirely legal and valid, as it set aside the
Controlling Authority's decision by determining the fact that the petitioner is
not entitled to gratuity. He further contends that the petitioner's case falls
under Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, particularly Clause
b(ii), which reads as under:
"If the services of such employee have been ter
terminated
minated for any
act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude,
provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of
his employment."
He further submits that the petitioner was also facing a criminal
trial at that time and hence, the order is legal and valid.
7. Per contra,, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated that
the order dated 20.10.2004 (Annexure P-9)
P 9) is absolutely illegal and contrary to
established legal principles. He submits that there was no allegation of moral
turpitude against the petitioner and the authorities had wrongly invoked such a
charge. He also pointed out that the inquiry officer, in his report, had
exonerated the petitioner, but the disciplinary authority fail
failed to consider the
report and proceeded to compulsory retire the petitioner. Henc
Hence,
e, it could not
be considered a case of imposing the major penalty. Furthermore, the Bank did
CWP-6227-2005
not pass any order demonstrating any financial loss to it, much less any order
regarding the forfeiture of the petitioner's rights.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent
spondent-Bank further relies upon the
communication dated 18.06.2003
1 .06.2003 (Annexure P
P-5), whereby respondents-Bank
Bank
admitted the petitioner's claim. However, the only impediment was that the
petitioner was facing a criminal trial at that time, and hence, the sai
said
d amount
was not released to him.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in
the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The order dated
20.10.2004 (Annexure P-9)
P is evidently misconceived and, therefore, deserves
to be set aside.
10. The authorities have misinterpreted the definition of moral
turpitude and failed to consider that the Bank itself admitted in their
communication dated 18.06.2003 (Annexure P
P-5) the petitioner's claim.
Considering that the petitioner has been honorably acquitted in the criminal
case, I find no reason to deny the petitioner his rightful claim of gratuity.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 20.10.2004
(Annexure
xure P-9)
P 9) is set aside. The respondent
respondent-Bank is directed to release the
petitioner's gratuity within four weeks from today with interest at 10% per
annum.
11. It is a shocking case wherein the respondents did not file the
reply for 17 long years. So, itt cannot be ruled out that some concerned officer
in the Bank might get benefitted
ted from such an order.
CWP-6227-2005
Therefore, the accrued interest to be paid to the petitioner shall be recovered
from the concerned officer responsible for
f delaying the case at the relevant
time who failed in his duty to file the written statement within reasonable time..
If the concerned officer has since retired, the amount of interest shall be
recovered in installments by deducting from his pension.
12. Apart from the above, the respondent
respondent-Bank is also burned with
cost of ₹50,000
50,000 to be paid to the petitioner.
13. It is made clear that the payment to the petitioner shall not be
delayed on account of direction issued in para 11 of this order.
(ALOK JAIN)
September 25, 2024 JUDGE
manju
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
Whether Reportable:- Yes
