Western Coal Fields Ltd. vs Manohar Govinda Fulzele 2025 INSC 233 - Gratuity Act - Forfeiture - Criminal Proceedings

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 - Section 4(6)(b)(ii) - No conviction in a criminal proceeding is necessitated, if the misconduct alleged & proved constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude - The failure of the employer to initiate a criminal proceeding on the fraud employed by way of the the fabricated/forged certificate produced for the purpose of employment, does not militate against the forfeiture- 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. (Para 10-13) [Disagreed with view taken in Union Bank of India vs. C.G. Ajay Babu (2018) 9 SCC 529, but did not refer the matter to larger bench as it noticed that the statutory provision does not make it a requirement that the misconduct alleged & proved in a departmental enquiry should not only   constitute an offence involving moral turpitude, but also should be duly established in a Court of Law -The words  "duly established in a Court of Law"  cannot be supplied to the provision- It was observed that these observations were obiter dicta.]