Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.24 10:23:14 +0530 2025:CGHC:35421 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 11 of 2021 The Sub Area Manager SECL, Rehar Gayatri Ketka Sub Area Bishrampur Area Po- Ketka, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
1. Shri Joseph Xalxo S/o Shri Khakri Xalxo, Qtr No, 658, Chopra Colony SECL, Bishrampur, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh. Pin- 497226, 2. Appellate Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act 1972 And Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (C) Government Of India, Ministry Of Labour And Employment, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Controlling Authority And Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondent No. 1 For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate along with Ms. Azka Alam, Advocate : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 23. 07.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, in Case No. PGA 62/2019 dated 06.01.2021, whereby the Appellate Authority has partly allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and reduced the amount of gratuity from Rs. 10,00,000/- to Rs. 7,98,794/-. 2 2. Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that respondent No. 1 was working on the post of Electric Fitter Category-V at Rehar Underground Mines, Surguja. He was served with an article of charge-cum-suspension order on 19.09.2011 under the certified standing order of SECL, wherein, it was alleged that respondent No. 1 submitted false medical bills in respect of treatment of his father at Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai to the tune of Rs. 4,50,000/- and obtained the said amount by playing fraud, whereas the actual medical bill was of Rs. 4,700/-. He would further submit that a full-fledged Department Enquiry was conducted, wherein, respondent No. 1 categorically admitted his misconduct. He would contend that the disciplinary authority vide order dated 26.08.2016, passed an order of dismissal from services. Mr. Deshmukh would further submit that respondent No. 1 moved an application for the grant of gratuity before the learned Controlling Authority and it was allowed vide order dated 07.12.2018, whereby the employer/petitioner was directed to make payment of gratuity to the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- to respondent no. 1. He would further contend that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner which has partly been allowed and the amount of gratuity has been reduced from Rs. 10,00,000/- to 7,98,794/-. He would also contend that as respondent No. 1 himself admitted his misconduct, his services were terminated, and further, there was an allegation of moral turpitude; therefore, the employer had the authority of law to forfeit the amount of gratuity. He would further argue that the learned Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority have committed an error of law 3 in passing the order in favour of respondent No. 1. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1, would submit that no show-cause notice was issued to respondent No.1 to establish that the misconduct was not an offence involving moral turpitude and the extent to which the amount of gratuity could have been forfeited. Mr. Dhurandhar has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Western Coal Fields Ltd. vs. Manohar Govinda Fulzele & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 2608 of 2025. 4. Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Advocate appearing for respondents No. 2 & 3, would support the orders passed by the authorities. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 6. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 was an employee of the petitioner, and his services were terminated by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 26.08.2016. Respondent No. 1 admitted the fact that he submitted false medical bills before the department and obtained Rs. 4,50,000/-. The disciplinary authority inflicted a penalty of dismissal from services, but with regard to the forfeiture of gratuity amount, neither a notice was issued nor was it dealt with. 7. The Controlling Authority passed the order in favour of respondent No. 1 and directed the employer to make payment of Rs. 10,00,000/-, whereas the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 reduced the amount from 10,00,000/- to 7,98,794/-. 8. In the matter of Manohar Govinda Fulzele (supra), the Hon’ble 4 Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar issue in para 10, held as under:- “10. As has been argued by the learned Solicitor General and the learned Counsel appearing for MSRTC, sub-clause (ii) of Section 4(6)(b) enables forfeiture of gratuity, wholly or partially, if the delinquent employee is terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, if the offence is committed in the course of his employment. An ‘Offence’ as defined in the General Clauses Act, means ‘any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being’ and does not call for a conviction; which definitely can only be on the basis of evidence led in a criminal proceeding. The standard of proof required in a criminal proceeding is quite different from that required in a disciplinary proceeding; the former being regulated by a higher standard of ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ while the latter governed by ‘preponderance of probabilities’. The provision of forfeiture of gratuity under the Act does not speak of a conviction in a criminal proceeding, for an offence involving moral turpitude. On the contrary, the Act provides for such forfeiture; in cases where the delinquent employee is terminated for a misconduct, which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude. Hence, the only requirement is for the Disciplinary Authority or the Appointing Authority to decide as to whether the misconduct could, in normal circumstances, constitute an offence involving moral turpitude, with a further discretion conferred on the authority forfeiting gratuity, to decide whether the forfeiture should be of the whole or only a part of the gratuity payable, which would depend on the gravity of the misconduct. Necessarily, there should be a notice issued to the terminated employee, who should be allowed to represent both on the question of the nature of the misconduct; whether it constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, and the extent to which such forfeiture can be made. There is a notice issued and consideration made in the instant appeals; the efficacy of which, has to be considered by us separately.” 9. It is not in dispute that no notice was issued to respondent No. 1, and he was not allowed to represent with regard to the nature of misconduct as to whether it constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude and the extent to which the amount of gratuity could have 5 been forfeited. 10. In the present case, the petitioner has taken a decision to forfeit the entire amount of gratuity, whereas the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority have passed the order in favour of respondent No. 1. 11. Admittedly, the notice was not issued to the petitioner with regard to the extent to which forfeiture could have been made, but at the same time, there is an admission on the part of respondent No. 1 that he submitted forged bills and grabbed Rs. 4,50,000/- from the department. 12. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to get the amount of gratuity pursuant to the order passed by the learned Appellate Authority after deduction of Rs. 4,50,000/-, the sum which was grabbed by him by submitting forged bills. The Controlling Authority shall disburse the amount in favor of respondent no. 1 pursuant to this order, and the remaining part shall be refunded to the petitioner. 13. Consequently, the instant petition is partly allowed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant