KISHANRAO VITHALRAO BAGALE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a 'dismissed' officer employee of the Bank of Baroda. He has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court on 2/3/2021 seeking a direction on the bank to release admissible gratuity in his favour.

(2.) Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Regulation 6 of Bank of Baroda Officer Employee's (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter "the 1976 Regulations", for short) for alleged acts of omission and commission while he was discharging duty as Manager, Amalner branch, Nagpur region, resulting in financial loss to the bank. In a duly convened enquiry, the petitioner was found guilty of all the charges and was ultimately dismissed from service by an order of the disciplinary authority dtd. 17/1/2011. The order of the disciplinary authority clearly records that because of reckless lending by the petitioner, the bank was likely to suffer financial loss to the tune of Rs.166.00 lakh. The order was carried in appeal by the petitioner. The appellate authority, however, did not find any reason to disagree with the order of the disciplinary authority and, therefore, proceeded to dismiss the appeal vide order dtd. 19/3/2012. In the meanwhile, after dismissal from service, the petitioner had applied for gratuity. The claim for gratuity was rejected by the Authorized Officer of the bank by an order dtd. 28/5/2011. The reason for forfeiture of gratuity was attributed to the wrongful acts of the petitioner which ultimately led to his dismissal. The said order dtd. 28/5/2011 and a subsequent order dtd. 15/1/2019 refusing to revoke the former order are under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) As can be noticed from the above narration of facts, the petitioner has instituted this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution more than 10 years after the claim for gratuity was initially rejected by the bank.