NISHITA MHATRE,J. - (1.) The questions which arise in the present appeal are (i) whether the employees of the UCO Bank are entitled to payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 or under the UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976; (ii) whether gratuity can be denied to an employee only because he has been held guilty of having committed a misconduct without quantifying the actual loss suffered by the employer before imposing any punishment on him; (iii) whether a separate enquiry can be held by the employer for quantifying the loss suffered by the employer after imposing the punishment of removal, dismissal etc. on the employee.
(2.) A few facts which are necessary to decide these issues are as under: The respondent employee was working with the appellant Bank when he was issued a charge -sheet on 20th November, 1992. A disciplinary enquiry was held against him, pursuant to which he was removed from service. The removal order indicates that he had with mala fide intentions committed the following acts: (i) allowed excess drawings beyond the sanctioned limit; (ii) continued allowing over -withdrawal in various accounts despite receiving instructions to the contrary; and (iii) deliberately failed to report irregularities through the monthly statements with an ulterior motive. Having been found guilty of all the charges, the employee was removed from service. He moved this Court by filing WP 2329 of 1994 challenging the order of removal. However, that writ petition was dismissed on 13th June, 2006 and the appeal preferred by the employee was also dismissed. Thus the finding that the employee had committed the aforesaid acts of misconduct was not disturbed and the punishment imposed on him attained finality.
(3.) The employee sought settlement of his dues such as provident fund, gratuity and leave wages. He submitted the requisite forms for the same in the year 2008 and then again in the year 2009. By a communication dated 15th February, 2010 the Bank called upon the employee to show cause why his gratuity should not be forfeited. The employee submitted an elaborate reply asserting that his gratuity and provident fund could not be forfeited. On 12th July, 2010 the Bank informed the employee that he had already been paid his contribution towards the provident fund and that he was not entitled to the Bank's contribution as the Trustees of the provident fund had denied him the same. Similarly he was informed that the Trustees of the gratuity fund had also declined to pay gratuity to him. It appears that the employee's contribution to the provident fund was credited to his account without the interest for the delay in payment.;