STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR Vs. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 & REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order dated 27.3.2012 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7002/2008 affirming the decision dated 8.5.2008 of the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Ajmer constitutes the subject matter of scrutiny in the present appeal.

(2.) We have heard Ms. Anita Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shashank Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 and Mr. Dharmendra Jain, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3

(3.) The facts, in brief, necessary for appropriately comprehending the rival contentions would be indispensably essential. The appellant-writ-petitioner is a Banking Institution constituted under the provisions of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Act of 1959") and the respondent no. 3 at the relevant point of time before being compulsorily retired was in its (appellant-Bank) service. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent no. 3 essentially on the charge that while he had been posted as Branch Manager, Ghaziabad Branch of the appellant-Bank during the period from 23.7.1992 to 10.2.1994, he had committed serious acts of misconduct and lapses relating to grant of term loan to various parties causing loss of 4,16,055/- to it o (appellant-Bank). As many as five charges were levelled against him and on the completion of the departmental enquiry by order dated 20.5.2004 of the Disciplinary Authority-General Manager (Operations), a penalty of compulsory retirement from the appellant-Bank's service was imposed on him in terms of Regulation 67(h) of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations"). While recording this penalty, it was inter-alia also observed that due to his sheer dereliction of duty and failure to observe the prescribed instructions in respect of sanction and conduct of loans under SLRS and SCP Schemes, an amount of 5,40,797/- had become difficult to recover and had to be written off and that a sum of 1,24,742/- could eventually be retrieved. There is no wrangle at the Bar that this disciplinary action resulting in imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement has become final.