BRAHMJIT RAHANOO Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the order dtd. 10/7/2008 (Annexure P-10) whereby the claim for payment of Gratuity has been rejected on account of the fact that the petitioner had misutilized his official position while in service of the Bank as Deputy Manager between the period from 11/7/2004 to 28/1/2006.

(2.) Resultantly, it was held that the acts of the petitioner whereby he had misutilized his position and borrowed money from the customers and allowed debts on different dates on account of unclear balance of one Lakhwinder Singh, had cast a shadow on his honesty and integrity and therefore, was an offence of moral turpitude. Thus, while falling back on Sec. 4 (6) (b) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, the '1972 Act'), the amount had been withheld by placing reliance upon Regulation No.12 (2) of the State Bank of Patiala Employees Gratuity Regulations, 1970, on the ground that the services were terminated as a punishment due to misconduct.

(3.) The present petition has been opposed by the Bank on the ground that the order of compulsory retirement had been passed on 21/9/2007 (Annexure P-1), which was upheld in appeal on 28/11/2007 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, CWP-3827-2014, which had been filed against the said order, had been dismissed on 29/4/2014 (Annexure P-4) on account of delay and latches, which order had been upheld in appeal before the Division Bench on 24/7/2014 (Annexure P-5) in LPA-1175- 2014.