J.J.MUNIR,J. - (1.) This writ petition preferred by the Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank through its Chairman is directed against an order dated 11.04.2018 passed by the Controlling Authority, Payment of Wages Act, 1972, rendered in P.G. Case no. LKO 36(09)/2017, and the order dated 16.10.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in File no. K-36/17/2018/C.1., affirming the order of the Authority of first instance.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are that the fourth respondent, Nihar Kanti Lal was posted as the Chief Manager, Fatehpur Main Branch of the petitioner, the Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank from 11.07.2011 to 29.12.2012, and again from 09.11.2013 to 30.04.2014. During this period of time, he committed serious financial irregularities, that the petitioner have described as those ''involving Rs.2.24 crores potential loss to the petitioner Bank'. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the fourth respondent, and a charge sheet was served upon him by the petitioner Bank on 31.03.2015. This was followed by another charge sheet dated 23.06.2015. A departmental inquiry ensued. Pending disciplinary proceedings, the fourth respondent was due to superannuate on 30.06.2015. The petitioner Bank appear to have informed the fourth respondent by their letter, dated 30.05.2015 that he would cease to be in service in accordance with Regulation 45(3) and Regulation 45(4) of the Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 (for short '' the Regulations'), but the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him would continue. It was further indicated in the letter dated 30.05.2015 that though the fourth respondent would cease to be in service on the date of superannuation, but payment of his retirement benefits shall be subject to Regulation 45(4) of the Regulations. A perusal of Regulation 45(4) shows that it lays an embargo on the right of an employee to receive any pay or allowance after the date of superannuation, as also post retirement benefits, till disciplinary proceedings are completed, and a final order is passed disposing of those proceedings. The only exception is the employee's entitlement to his own contribution of the Contributory Provident Fund.
(3.) The fourth respondent was found guilty on all charges by the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority, acting on the report of the Inquiry Officer, punished the fourth respondent vide order dated 24.04.2016 in the following terms (extracted verbatim from the punishment order): "1. Reduction from his present grade i.e. Scale-iv (Chief Manager) to a lower grade-I (Assistant Manager) with initial Basic Pay of Rs.23700/- 2. Recovery of Rs. five lacs from his terminal benefits.";