Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1952 - DELHI HIGH COURTTermination for involving in moral turpitude - forfeiture of gratuity - Imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement on the Appellant consequent to the findings returned by the Inquiry Officer - whether the penalty inflicted was not proportionate to the misconduct? - HELD THAT:- In the facts of the present case, while it is not in issue that consequent upon the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the CBI registered a case on 28th September 2016 against the Appellant and certain others for the aforementioned offences under the IPC and the PC Act, that case has as of now progressed only to the stage of filing of the charge sheet. The criminal court concerned will hereafter apply its mind to the contents of said charge sheet and pass an order on charge. The progress of the criminal case will depend on whether charges are framed against the Appellant; whether he is sent up for trial on those charges; whether he is convicted for the offences with which he is charged and whether such conviction attains finality. A further question would then arise as to whether the offences for which the Appellant is ultimately convicted would involve moral turpitude, as is mentioned in sub-clause (ii) of Section 4(6)(b) PG Act. Therefore, at this stage, it would be premature for the respondent-Bank to conclude that the acts for which the Appellant's services were terminated constitute offences involving moral turpitude. The decision in C.G. Ajay Babu [2018 (8) TMI 934 - SUPREME COURT], therefore, clearly explains that the action of forfeiting the gratuity payable to an employee cannot be taken at the stage when there is no final determination that such acts of the employee in fact constitute an offence involving moral turpitude. That determination can only be made by a criminal court and, thereafter, that determination must attain finality. The net result, as far as the present case is concerned, is that the impugned decision of the respondent-Bank in forfeiting the entire gratuity of the Appellant was premature and could not have been taken at the stage at which it was, i.e. even before the determination by a criminal court that the act committed by the Appellant constituted an offence involving moral turpitude. The impugned order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 9th March 2018 and, consequently, the order of the respondent-Bank dated 15th February 2017 by which the entire amount of gratuity payable to the Appellant was forfeited under Section 4(6)(b) of the PG Act are hereby set aside - gratuity amount withheld shall now be released to the Appellant by the Respondent no later than four weeks from today - Appeal disposed off.
|