Dr.Yellappa K.K Pura Vs the Director (Administration)

DR. YELLAPPA K.K PURA S/O YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS WORKING AS DEPUTY CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER (NOT IN SERVICE) NEKRTS GULBARGA GULBARGA DISTRICT R/O NO.3066/11 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS NEAR NIRMAL CONVENT SHCOOL GOKULAM PARK GOLKULM MYSORE

¶11

Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. H M MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶14

THE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) (APPELLATE AUTHORITY) KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560027

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:19456 WP No. 48686 of 2015

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560027

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. H R RENUKA, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:

¶23

(I) CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS;

¶24

(II) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.06/07.2015 PASSED BY RESPONDENT No.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-C, AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND VOID;

¶25

(III) ISSUE A CONSEQUENTIAL DIRECTION TO RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE THE GRATUITY AMOUNT ALONG WITH INTEREST AS PROVIDED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 FOR 30 YEARS SERVICE RENDERED BY HIM, IN RESPONDENT OFFICE AND ISSUE SUITABLE ORDERS & ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDER , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:19456 WP No. 48686 of 2015

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

This petition is filed assailing the order passed by 2^nd respondent in terms of which the entire gratuity payable to the petitioner is forfeited.

¶33

It is an admitted fact that domestic enquiry was held against the petitioner in respect of certain misconduct. The charges are established and the petitioner was dismissed from service.

¶34

The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order of dismissal from service and appeal also came to be dismissed. Petitioner's challenge to the aforementioned said orders in writ Petition No.42869/2015 is unsuccessful and order of dismissal is confirmed.

¶35

Since, the petitioner was dismissed from service exercising power under Section 4(6)(1)(b)(ii) of The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Act, 1972), the respondent/employer forfeited the entire gratuity amount.

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:19456 WP No. 48686 of 2015

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the employer is not entitled to forfeit the gratuity amount as no loss is caused to the Corporation on account of misconduct alleged and proved. Assuming that any misconduct is proved, then also the forfeiture cannot exceed the damage caused or loss suffered. Thus, he would urge that the respondent should not have forfeited the entire gratuity amount.

¶40

Learned counsel for the respondent would refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in WESTERN COAL FIELD LIMITED vs MANOHAR GOVINDA FULZELE¹ wherein it is held that the employer is entitled to forfeit the gratuity amount in case the misconduct results in termination.

¶41

The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the record.

¶42

Section 4(6)(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, 1972 provides for forfeiture of gratuity either wholly or partially in the event

¶43

1 MANU/SC/0224/2025

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:19456 WP No. 48686 of 2015

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

of termination of services of the employee for any act which constitutes moral turpitude provided the act is committed in the course of employment.

¶48

From the said provision, it is apparent that loss or damage to the employer is not the criterion to forfeit the penalty. The only criterion is the misconduct should constitute moral turpitude. The demand for bribe by the petitioner and receipt of the same certainly amounts to a misconduct constituting moral turpitude.

¶49

Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the Authority is justified in forfeiting the gratuity amount. However, it is required to be noticed that when the petitioner misconducted, he had already put in sufficient service and considerable gratuity amount had been accumulated in his account. The Court also asked the counsel for the respondent/Corporation as to whether any cases involving moral turpitude were pending against the petitioner.

¶50

The learned counsel for the respondent on instructions submitted that in all six cases involving certain

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:19456 WP No. 48686 of 2015

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

irregularities were held against the petitioner and in addition, the case involved in Writ Petition No.42869/2015 is one case which constituted moral turpitude.

¶55

Since, the present case is the only case constituting moral turpitude, the Court is of the view that forfeiting entire gratuity amount would be extremely harsh and disproportionate penalty on the petitioner.

¶56

The provision referred to above under the Act, 1972 does not mandate full forfeiture of the gratuity amount payable. The expression used is 'the gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly or partially be forfeited'. In appropriate cases, the employer can forfeit the gratuity amount partially. The Court is of the view that this is one such case which warrants partial forfeiture. Thus, the Court is of the view that forfeiture of 50% of the gratuity amount payable would be an appropriate penalty.

¶57

The respondent - Corporation is entitled to forfeit only 50% of the gratuity amount payable and the remaining

¶58

7 -

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:19456 WP No. 48686 of 2015

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

50% of the gratuity amount shall be released in favour of

¶62

the petitioner.

¶63

In the result, I pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

(i) The writ petition is allowed in part ;

¶66

(ii) The impugned order dated 01.06/07.2015 passed by respondent No.2, vide Annexure ‘C’, is partly set aside .

¶67

(iii) The respondent – Corporation shall forfeit only 50% of the gratuity amount payable to the petitioner;

¶68

(iv) Remaining 50% of the gratuity amount payable to the petitioner shall be released by the respondent – Corporation in favour of the petitioner, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶69

(v) It is also made clear that the liability to pay interest on 50% of the gratuity amount payable would accrue only after expiry of 60 days referred to

¶70

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:19456 WP No. 48686 of 2015

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

above and the liability to pay interest at the rate contemplated under the The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 would commence only after expiry of 60 days referred to above.

¶73

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶74

RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Dr.Yellappa K.K Pura v. the Director (Administration)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Yellappa K.K Pura v. the Director (Administration)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sharada J Rao Vs Esi Corporation

Rama Naik Vs the Presiding Officer

Ttk Prestige Limited Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Sri H S Maheshwara Vs Union of India

Krishna Kumar @ Krishna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H M Manoj @ Mikki Vs the State of Karnataka