JAI PRAKASH Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition was filed initially for direction upon the respondents to release the amount of terminal benefit including gratuity and leave encashment with interest which might be adjudged by this Court. Difference of salary from 1st January, 1996 to 31st December, 1998 admissible to the petitioner on account of pay revision and difference of salary between 17th August 2002 to 31st August, 2004 admissible to the petitioner on account of his suspension.

(2.) DURING pendency of the writ petition, there has been subsequent development as the punishment order was issued on 31st December, 2005. The short fact of the case is as follows: - -

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not challenged the finding of Inquiry Officer as the disciplinary authority has accepted the report. He, however, fair to say Rule does not envisage to impose the punishment of this nature. He submits that the Apex Court has approved of the concept of imposing punishment to deprive the employee of the benefit of gratuity when the employer suffers loss. Therefore, this portion of forfeiting of gratuity by the impugned order is not totally illegal.