YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard Sri Vijay Ratan Agrawal learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared for the respondents even though the matter is taken up in the revised call.
(2.) This petition impugns the order dated 12 December 2006 passed by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. A further challenge is laid to the order dated 13 September 2007 passed by the Appellate Authority affirming the view taken by the Controlling Authority. In terms of the impugned orders the action of the petitioner-bank forfeiting the gratuity payable to the third respondent has been interfered with and set aside. The facts which are relevant for disposal of the instant writ petition are as under:- The third respondent is stated to have been working as Teller Officer against whom allegations of serious misconduct and offences of forgery came to be levelled. The petitioner-bank also alleged that his acts had caused loss to it to the extent of Rs. 6,66,200/- in light of his actions of misappropriation of moneys. On disciplinary proceedings being drawn, the petitioner-bank ultimately inflicted the punishment of dismissal upon the third respondent. It becomes pertinent to note that in the disciplinary proceedings the third respondent had confessed to the acts of misappropriation and had accepted the factum of loss caused to the bank. It is in that backdrop that he proceeded also to repay the amount of moneys claimed by the bank to have been misappropriated. The order of dismissal was assailed by the third respondent before this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 18312 of 2000. That petition came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 02 September 2002. In order to appreciate the extent of challenge which was laid to the order of dismissal, the Court deems it appropriate to extract the following parts of the decision rendered on the aforementioned writ petition:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner argued only on the point of punishment on the ground that the entire amount has been repaid to the bank and the bank is not suffering any loss. No other ground as stated in the writ petition has been taken in the argument. We are of the opinion that this is a case of misappropriation of the customers money deposited in the Bank. The petitioner had forged the signatures of the customers of the Bank for misappropriation of Rs.6.66 lacs. Temporary conversion of the amount for his own use is also a criminal misappropriation, so that charge of misconduct stands proved. The deposit of money in the Bank by the petitioner is not sufficient to mitigate the seriousness of the charge of misconduct, therefore, there is no sufficient ground to interfere in the quantum of punishment as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner."
(3.) As is evident from the recordal of facts as appearing in the judgment rendered by the Division Bench, the only issue which was raised by the third respondent was that the entire amount which was stated to have been misappropriated had been repaid to the bank. The Division Bench however took the view that mere repayment would not be sufficient to mitigate the seriousness of the charge of misconduct. Subsequent to the order of dismissal having attained finality, the petitioner-bank proceeded to forfeit the gratuity which was payable to the third respondent. This decision of the petitioner-bank has been interfered with by the Controlling Authority on the sole ground that the principles of natural justice were not adhered to.;