GOPALAKRISHNA Vs. KARNATAKA SOAPS AND DETERGENTS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Senior Manger (Materials) in the respondent-Bank. During the period 15th May 1991 to 20th September 1991, he is alleged to have made irregular purchases for a sum of more than Rs. One Crore and forty five lakhs. Consequently, a charge sheet proposing disciplinary action against the petitioner for making such purchases, has been served upon him on 31st May 1995 as per Annexure 'B' to the Writ Petition. The petitioner, in the meantime, superannuated and was relieved in terms of Annexure 'F' to the Writ Petition subject to the provisions of Rule 19(ii) of KS & DL Conduct and Disciplinary Action Rules 1984. Before his retirement, the petitioner appears to have made an application for the payment of the gratuity amount due to him. In response, the respondent issued an endorsement stating that since an enquiry is pending against him, the gratuity amount shall have to be withheld in terms of Rule 19(ii) of K. S. & D. L. Conduct and Disciplinary Action Rules 1984 pending the finalisation of the enquiry proceedings.

(2.) Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up to this Court in the present writ petition for a mandamus declaring Rule 19(ii) of the aforesaid Rules as ineffective, inoperative and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) I have hard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who strenuously argued that Rule 19(ii) of the Rules aforesaid was opposed to Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act; and was therefore liable to be ignored if not declared ultravires. He urged that Section 14 of the Act gave over-riding effect to the provisions of the Act and any Rule or Regulation which came in conflict with the obligation to pay gratuity under the Act was unenforceable and illegal. He further contended that the withholding of the gratuity was permissible only under the Act and not under a provision unrelated to the same which made the respondents' refusal patently illegal and improper.