LAWS(ALL)-2023-5-43

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On May 25, 2023
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Akhilesh Kalra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Avinash Chandra as well Shri Ved Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners through video conferencing mode and Shri Gaurav Srivastava, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 4.

(2.) The respondent No. 4 (herein-after referred to as the "employee") was appointed on the post of Shroff/ Godown Keeper on 9/8/1978 in the petitioner-Bank. He was dismissed from service in the year 1995 and remained out of service till 2000, whereafter certain proceedings were held before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow, which set aside the termination order imposing a condition that the period during which the employee remained suspended would be treated as "no work no pay" period. The said order was confirmed by this Court in Writ C No. 49519 of 2004. On 3/2/2009, the employee was placed under suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary enquiry on the charge of embezzlement and misappropriation of funds. A charge sheet was issued to the employee on 8/5/2009 containing charges of misappropriation of amount.

(3.) The employee challenged the charge sheet by filing writ petition and, thereafter, various miscellaneous and other proceedings were held, which are not necessary to be stated as the issue involved in the present writ petition is as to whether withholding of gratuity payable to the employee is according to law or not. However, it is relevant that pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings, a final order of punishment was passed on 29/9/2015 dismissing the respondent No. 4 from services in terms of clause 6 (a) of the Memorandum of Settlement dtd. 10/4/2002 and it was held that since the charges had been proved in the enquiry and were grave in nature and reveal moral turpitude, the period spent by the employee under suspension would be treated as "one not spent on duty" and he would not be entitled to any monetary or other benefits other than the subsistence allowance, already paid to him.