The relevant provisions of the Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules (CDA Rules) of the company, contain a deeming provision of continuation of employment to enable dismissal from service even post superannuation. The s

Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 allows an employer to forfeit gratuity, either wholly or partially, if the employee's services are terminated for disorderly conduct, an offence involving moral turpitude, or willful omission causing loss to the employer. In the matter of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited v. Sri Rabindranath Choubey, [Civil Appeal No. 9693 of 2013 decided on 27th May, 2020] , the Supreme Court observed that the provisions of Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, provides for recovery or forfeiture of gratuity, where services of employee have been terminated for the reasons prescribed in Section 4(6)(a) and 4(6)(b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. As the forfeiture is conditional upon the delinquent employee being terminated or dismissed from the services, no forfeiture is possible where the employee is not capable of being dismissed, presumably upon being superannuated. However, the situation is different, where the Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules (CDA Rules) of the company contain a deeming provision of continuation of employment to enable dismissal from service even post superannuation. The Supreme Court observed that the Payment of Gratuity Act makes no provision with respect to departmental inquiries. Hence, no fetter is caused upon operation of provisions of the CDA Rules providing for a continuation of the inquiry and deemed continuation of the employee in service after the age of superannuation. After referring to various decisions, the Supreme Court observed that it was apparent under CDA Rules that inquiry could be held in the same manner as if the employee had continued in service and the appropriate major and minor punishment commensurate to guilt can be imposed including dismissal as provided in the CDA Rules and in case pecuniary loss had been caused, that can also be recovered. Gratuity can be forfeited wholly or partially. Relying on the Full Bench decision in the case of State Bank of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar, [(2011) 10 SCC 249] , the Supreme Court ruled that, where the relevant disciplinary rules permit continuation of disciplinary proceeding against a superannuated employee and imposition of penalty of dismissal as if the employee had continued to be in employment: it is permissible in law for the employer to withhold the payment of gratuity to the employee after retirement from service on account of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against him; and it is permissible for the disciplinary authority to impose penalty of dismissal after the employee stood retired from service.