IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6243 of 2009 Between: D. Sadasiva Reddy, S/o. Chalama Reddy, R/o. H.No. MIG 64, ABHB Colony, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Nalgonda District Co-opertive Central Bank Ltd. Rep by its General Manager Cum CEO, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. MD. ASIFUDDIN FOR MR.M.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent:MR. D.KRISHNA FOR MR.AMARNATH GOUD THODUPUNURI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not releasing gratuity, medical reimbursement, group insurance, leave salary etc., to the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri Md.Asifuddin, learned counsel representing Sri M.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.Krishna, learned counsel representing Sri T.Amarnath Goud, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner was the Manager of Nidamanur Branch of the respondent bank. Following the disciplinary proceedings, his services were terminated on 10.07.2004 with effect from 26.06.2004. The said order of termination was questioned in Writ Petition No.1499 of 2005, which is stated to be pending in this Court. The petitioner has subsequently, reached the age of superannuation on 30.04.2006. He made an application to the respondent for payment of retirement benefits like gratuity, leave salary, group insurance and medical reimbursement. He pleaded that on his application made on 31.01.2009, the respondent endorsed on 02.02.2009 for payment of the said monetary benefits. The inaction of the respondent in paying the said amounts is questioned in this writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it is inter alia averred that the enquiry officer in his report submitted after conducting departmental enquiry, held that the petitioner was guilty of causing financial loss to the tune of Rs.4,83,750/-; that following the same, the petitioner’s services were terminated by the respondent vide his order, dated 10.07.2004 and that while the petitioner was working as Secretary of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Huzurnagar, he misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,06,272/-, for which, a show cause notice under Section 60(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 was issued. The respondent relied on the provisions of Section 6 of the Gratuity Act, 1972, which enables the employer to forfeit the gratuity of an employee, if his services were terminated for any act, willful omission or negligence, causing damage or destruction of property belonging to the employer. It is not the case of the respondent that the disciplinary authority has passed any order directing recovery of the alleged loss of Rs.4,83,750/- from the petitioner. It is also not the pleaded case of the respondent that in respect of the alleged loss, surcharge proceedings were initiated. The proceedings are stated to have been initiated only in respect of the alleged loss of Rs.1,06,272/- and no surcharge order has yet been passed. In almost identical circumstances, this Court negatived the contention of the employer and allowed Writ Petition No.7836 of 2003 with the direction to the employer to release the amount of gratuity and that in the event of the competent authority passing an order for recovery of the loss caused by the petitioner, the same may be recovered by the respondent by attachment or sale of movable or immovable properties of the petitioner other than the gratuity amount. The said order passed on 05.08.2003 was confirmed in Writ Appeal No.2056 of 2003 vide judgment, dated 28.11.2003. Following the said two judgments, this writ petition is allowed to the extent of release of gratuity to the petitioner, with liberty to the respondent to recover the loss, if any, caused by the petitioner subject to an order being passed by the competent authority for such recovery by sale of movable and immovable properties of the petitioner. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 7th APRIL, 2009. kvni