NARENDRAKUMAR Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner, who was at the relevant time, an Inspector in the respondent-co-operative bank has challenged, after 3 years, an order dated June 6, 2005 passed by the controlling authority whereby the controlling authority, upon application by the present petitioner, has directed the respondent-employer to pay 75% of the amount payable to the petitioner towards gratuity and has also permitted the respondent-employer to retain, as deposit, the balance 25% amount.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the said order permitting the respondent-employer to retain the balance 25% of the amount payable towards the gratuity, the petitioner has preferred present petition after 3 years since the date of the order. It transpires that the petitioner was, at the relevant time, working as Inspector and on certain allegations a notice dated September 11, 2003 was issued against the petitioner. It further appears from the record that the respondent had initiated or was contemplating to conduct departmental inquiry against the present petitioner in connection with the said notice dated September 11, 2003.

(3.) BEFORE the departmental inquiry could be completed, the petitioner herein crossed the age of superannuation and accordingly, he was superannuated on and from October 3, 2003. From the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner was allowed to retire on the condition of. retaining retiral benefits. The impugned order also recites that during the preliminary inquiry, the petitioner, had admitted the irregularity which allegedly resulted into loss of about Rs. l,22,900/-and it was in light of such consequence, that the respondent- employer purportedly invoked the provisions under section 4 (6) of the Payment of Gratuity (Gujarat) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1972' for short) and forfeited the amount payable towards the gratuity.