Forfeiture of gratuity without held guilty

I am a retired government servant. A departmental proceeding was pending at the time of my retirement. Therefore, the competent authority had forfeited my gratuity without holding me guilty of proved misconduct. He presented ambiguous inquiry report which is forthwith admitted by the superior officer.  Thereupon full gratuity is forfeited. Gratuity is the self-earned income of the employee, so the government has no power to forfeit it without holding me guilty. Is there any provision that concerned authority can forfeit my gratuity without held me guilty?

by Shivendra Pratap Singh | Mar 4, 2019 | Civil Matters

I am a retired government servant. A departmental proceeding was pending at the time of my retirement. Therefore, the competent authority had forfeited my gratuity without holding me guilty of proved misconduct. He presented ambiguous inquiry report which is forthwith admitted by the superior officer.  Thereupon full gratuity is forfeited.

Gratuity is the self-earned income of the employee, so the government has no power to forfeit it without holding me guilty. Is there any provision that concerned authority can forfeit my gratuity without held me guilty?

There is no provision under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which empowers the concerned authority to forfeit gratuity without holding you guilty. Section 4 of the said act unambiguously states that:

“Gratuity shall be payable to an employee on the termination of his employment (after he has rendered continuous service for not less than five years) on his superannuation, or retirement or resignation, or his death or disablement due to accident or disease.”

Furthermore, sub section 6 of the said section 4 states that authority may forfeit gratuity if he terminated the employee on these grounds:

  • On any act, willful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer.
  • His riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part.
  • For any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment.

Thus, it is evidence that authority cannot forfeit gratuity except holding the employee guilty for any offence as mentioned above. Disciplinary proceedings were pending at the time of your retirement. Hence, the concerned authority had no authority to forfeit gratuity. Eventually, he is not empowered to automatically forfeit the gratuity.

In Beed District Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 8 SCC 514; Y. K. Singla v. PNB, (2013) 3 SCC 472 and Jaswant Singh Gill v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., (2007) 1 SCC 663; the Supreme Court has held that employer can forfeit the gratuity if he convicts the employee for any offence mentioned in subsection 6 of section 4 of The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Hence, forfeiture of gratuity without holding you guilty is illegal. Therefore, you should challenge the process of forfeiture before the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. You should file a writ petition before the High Court.

Author's Profile

Tags: Civil Law | Service Matter

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Advocate

Advocate Shivendra, practicing law since 2005, specializes in criminal and matrimonial cases, extensive litigatin experience before the High Court, Sessions court & Family Court. He established kanoonirai.com in 2014 to provide dependable and pragmatic legal support. Over the years, he has successfully assisted thousands of clients, making the platform a trusted resource for criminal and matrimonial dispute resolution in India.

Consult Online

Related Matters

Bank refused to obey the order of Lok Adalat

Mar 9, 2025 |

This legal guidance explains the remedies available when a bank fails to comply with a compromise order passed by the Lok Adalat despite receiving the settled amount. It discusses enforcement of the award, execution proceedings, contempt-related remedies, and the legal course available against arbitrary action of the bank.

Subsequent proceedings in arbitration matter

Feb 7, 2025 |

This legal guidance explains the legal consequences and subsequent proceedings arising after an arbitration award or order in an arbitration matter. It discusses enforcement of the award, challenge proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, execution remedies, limitation periods, and the jurisdiction of courts in post-award disputes.

Civil court dismissed suit for want of jurisdiction

Jan 11, 2025 |

This legal guidance explains the remedies available when a civil court dismisses a suit on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It discusses return of plaint under the Civil Procedure Code, refiling before the competent court, limitation protection, and the legal consequences arising from adjudication by a court lacking jurisdiction.

Admission in NRI quota can be changed afterwards

Dec 25, 2024 |

This legal guidance explains whether admission obtained under the NRI quota can subsequently be altered, cancelled, or converted to another category. It discusses eligibility conditions, consequences of misrepresentation, university regulations, refund issues, and the legal remedies available against arbitrary cancellation or change of admission status.

Claim related to motor accident in consumer forum

Dec 2, 2024 |

This article discusses whether a claim arising out of a motor accident can be pursued before a Consumer Forum in addition to or instead of proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). It examines the maintainability of such claims under consumer protection law, the liability of insurance companies, and the distinction between deficiency in service and statutory compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.