WA 234/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MUSAHARY (Madan B. Lokur, CJ) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.6.20 10 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.3189 of 2008. In the order und er appeal, three reliefs have been granted to the petitioner as follows :- a) The subsistence allowance from 01.03.2007 to 17.03.2007; b) The interest at the rate of 7% on delayed payment in respect of the peti tioner’s own contributions towards Provident fund with effect from 17.03.2007 to 06.08.2007 along with the same interest with effect from 17.03.2007 to 19.05.20 09 relating to the Bank’s own contribution towards Provident Fund till payment i s made; c) The payment of gratuity along with 7% interest on the amount of gratuity for illegal withholding and/or forfeiting the payment of gratuity till the paym ent is made. When this matter came up for consideration on 6th August, 2010 learned c ounsel for the appellant Bank submitted that the objection is only with regard to the relief contained in sub-paragraph (c) and that there is no dispute with r egard to the sub-paragraph (a) and (b). The Division Bench then directed the appellant Bank to satisfy the requi rement of sub-paragraph (a) and (b) of the judgment under appeal and only therea fter the present appeal would be considered for admission. Today the learned counsel for the parties say that in so far the reliefs (a) and (b) are concerned, both these reliefs have been satisfied. We have heard learned counsel with regard to the relief regarding payment of gra tuity. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that forfeiture of gratuity is permissible under Rule 12 of the Central Bank of India Employees’ Gratuity Fund Rules. This Rule reads as follows :- 12. In case of termination of service of the member on account of proven miscon duct, Gratuity payable shall not be forfeited, except where such misconduct caus es financial loss to the Bank and in that case the forfeiture of the Gratuity sh all be to the extent of the financial loss only. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule makes it clear that if there is a finan cial loss to the Bank, then forfeiture of gratuity may be made to the extent of the financial loss only. Learned counsel for the appellant Bank relies upon the Final Order passe d by the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the charge-sheet issued to the wri t petitioner. This Final Order is dated 26th February, 2007. Learned counsel for the appellant Bank relies on the following observation made in the Final Order :- (a) Sri Bijon Dhar while working as Chief Manager Siliguri Branch took over a b orrower account named M/s Amar Garage from Union Bank and flouted instructions contained in Zonal Office letter No.ZO/KOL/CMD/04-05/60-3 dated 18.10.2004. He also did not adhere to the norms stipulated in the loan policy in this regard as the unit had incurred loss in the year 2001-2002. While sanctioning enhanced li mit to the firm, he failed to vouch alarming signals of financial indicators giv en the process note comment over which were deliberately concealed by appraising office. Within one year of sanction the account showed its weakness and symptom s of non-performing assets. The bank is likely to suffer loss to the tune of Rs. one crore which is at present outstanding in the account. (emphasis given). Strong reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the appellant Ban k on the last sentence of the above passage. However, a perusal thereof shows th at the appellant Bank has not quantified the loss, but has only indicated the lo ss likely to be suffered. In our opinion, Rule 12 of the Central Bank of India Employees’ Gratuity Fund Rules makes it clear that forfeiture is permissible in case there is a fin ancial loss caused to the appellant Bank. This postulates quantification of the financial loss and not the likelihood of a financial loss. The reason for this is that if there is a loss of a small amount of mone y, a Bank may take a view that it has suffered an enormous loss in terms of its credibility and its clients may withdraw their deposits with the Bank. This can lead to a completely unreasonable situation detrimental to the interests of the employee. It is for this reason that actual loss is postulated and not potential loss. In so far the present case is concerned, there is no quantification of t he financial loss caused to the Bank but only the likelihood of the loss. It doe s not, in our opinion, meet the requirement of Rule 12 of the Central Bank of In dia Employees’ Gratuity Fund Rules which requires quantification of the financia l loss. Under the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in respect of the relief of payment of gratu ity to the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant Bank has not pointed ou t anything in the Final Order showing the quantification of the financial loss s uffered by the appellant Bank. There is no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed.