VINOD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the order dated 28-11-2003 about the recovery of subsistence allowance and also prayed for a direction for payment of leave encashment, provident fund and gratuity with interest thereon.

(2.) During the pendency of the above writ petition, this Court by the order dated 11-12-2006 allowed the petitioner to withdraw the amount of leave encashment in the sum of Rs. 98,400/- and the amount of gratuity Rs. 2,83,842/-was directed to be invested.

(3.) During the course of hearing of this petition, the counsel for contesting respondent No. 2 fairly stated that insofar as leave encashment is concerned, the petitioner was entitled to the same and respondent No. 2 does not dispute its liability to make payment thereof and that is why this Court ordered payment of the same to the petitioner. We, therefore, confirm the said interim order dated 11-12-2006. The counsel for respondent No. 2 however hotly contested the claim of the petitioner for payment of gratuity on the ground that the petitioner was proceeded against in a Departmental Enquiry and was found guilty of serious charges and that is why respondent No. 2 was entitled to forfeit the entire gratuity amount. According to him, the petitioner was charged for misappropriation of 3150 Mts. of iron and steel to respondent No. 2 under Warehouse credit scheme and was found guilty. It is due to the act of omission and commission on the part of the petitioner the respondent No. 2 had to suffer loss of Rs. 4.85 crores and that is why respondent No. 2 was entitled to have forfeiture of the amount of the gratuity due to the petitioner.