JUDGMENT 1. - By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents may be directed to pay amount of gratuity to the petitioner at a higher rate and may be directed to pay additional amount after deducting Rs. 36,150/- already paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the decision taken by the respondents dated 11-10-2002, by which the respondents have conveyed that the petitioner is not entitled to receive the amount of gratuity. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk and he was ultimately promoted as Branch Manager. While he was in service, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and ultimately he was removed from service by order dated 14-3-1990. The petitioner thereafter started taking proceedings for recovering the amount of gratuity. In this behalf the petitioner preferred an application before the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act. It seems that during the pendency of the said application, the respondent-Bank paid an amount of Rs. 36,150/- to the petitioner towards gratuity. However, the Controlling Authority ultimately by its order dated 30-12-1992 came to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled to Rs. 88,830/- towards gratuity and after deducting the amount already paid by the respondents to the petitioner, it was ordered that the balance amount of Rs. 52,680/- should be paid to the petitioner. The said order of the Controlling Authority was challenged by the respondent-Bank by preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The said appeal was dismissed, against which the respondent-Bank preferred a writ petition before the Mumbai High Court. The Mumbai High Court vide its order dated 26-4-1995 set aside the order of the Controlling Authority on the ground that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act are not applicable. It was also held by the Mumbai High Court that the respondent-Bank should not recover the amount already paid to the petitioner towards gratuity and also made incidental observations to the effect that it will be open to the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings before appropriate Court or authority in case he is of the view that he is entitled to claim higher rate of gratuity. However, ultimately, the respondent-Bank (sic) to a decision on 11-10-2002 that the petitioner is not entitled to receive the amount of gratuity. However, ultimately, the respondent-Bank (sic) to a decision on 11-10-2002 that the petitioner is not entitled to receive the amount of gratuity. The petitioner has thereafter filed this writ petition on the ground that the amount of gratuity paid to him is not just and proper and amount should be paid at a higher rate. 3. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent-Bank by filing reply, which is finding place at page No. 50 in the compilation. It is the say of the respondent-Bank that the petitioner is not entitled to any amount of gratuity in view of the fact that he was removed from service in view of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and therefore, in view of the provisions of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 (for brevity, 'the Regulations of 1979') no amount of gratuity is payable to the petitioner. On this and such other grounds, the writ petition has been resisted by the respondent-Bank. 4. On behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel Ms. Gayatri Rathore has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to gratuity even if he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and even if he was removed from service. In order to substantiate her say, she submitted that the Mumbai High Court has merely set aside the order of the Controlling Authority on the ground that the Payment of Gratuity Act is not applicable and therefore, under the regulations framed by the respondent-Bank, the petitioner is entitled to such amount of gratuity. It is argued by her that since the petitioner has put in service for more than 30 years, he was entitled to full gratuity amount. She further submitted that as per Regulations 12(2) of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Payment of Gratuity to Employees) Regulations, 1970 (for brevity, 'the Regulations of 1970'), an employee is entitled to gratuity even if he is dismissed for a misconduct involving financial loss to the Bank by deducting the amount to the extent of such loss from the gratuity amount admissible to him. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank Mr. Garg on the other hand submitted that in view of the punishment order passed against the petitioner, he was not entitled to any amount of gratuity. It is further argued by Mr. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank Mr. Garg on the other hand submitted that in view of the punishment order passed against the petitioner, he was not entitled to any amount of gratuity. It is further argued by Mr. Garg that the punishment order was challenged by the petitioner before the Madras High Court and the Madras High Court has also held that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. It is further submitted by Mr. Garg that the petitioner was involved in financial irregularities and had committed a serious misconduct and after an enquiry, he was removed from service, therefore, he is not entitled to any amount of gratuity, however, whatever amount is paid by the Bank was in view of the fact that proceedings were pending before the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act and therefore, simply because some amount was paid by the Bank, it should not be construed as if the Bank has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to gratuity. He further submitted that the Bank is not going to recover the amount already paid to the petitioner towards gratuity in view of the judgment of the Mumbai High Court, but surely the petitioner is not entitled to any additional amount of gratuity. 6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties, gone through the writ petition, reply and the documents annexed therewith. In this connection it is required to be noted that, the order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act has been set aside by the Mumbai High Court and the petitioner was given liberty to take appropriate proceedings in case he is of the view that he is entitled to higher rate of gratuity. In this connection, the factual aspect which is required to be taken into consideration is that the petitioner was removed from service in view of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The order of the Disciplinary Authority was upheld by the learned single Judge of the Madras High Court, which was further upheld by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 622/1997. The said judgment has been annexed by the respondent-Bank with the reply. 7. The order of the Disciplinary Authority was upheld by the learned single Judge of the Madras High Court, which was further upheld by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 622/1997. The said judgment has been annexed by the respondent-Bank with the reply. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that it is true that the petitioner was removed from service in view of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him and that question has now become final. Under these circumstances, now the question which requires consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to get the amount of gratuity from the respondent-Bank or not. So far as the employees of the respondent Bank are concerned, the Bank has framed the Regulations of 1970, the Regulation 12(2) of same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference : "12(2). Notwithstanding anything contained hereinabove:- a) No gratuity will be granted to or in the case of an employee if he is or has been dismissed from service in the Bank for any misconduct committed by him prior to 1st January, 1966; b) In case of termination of the service of an employee by dismissal for any misconduct committed by him after 1st January, 1966 involving financial loss to the Bank, there shall be forfeiture to the extent of such loss from the gratuity admissible to him otherwise under these Regulations : Provided, however, that notwithstanding anything contained hereinabove, gratuity will be granted to or in respect of an employee governed by the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur ('Officers') Service Regulations, on : (a) Retirement; (b) Death; (c) Disablement rendering him unfit for further service as certified by a medical officer approved by the Bank; (d) Resignation after completion of ten years of continuous service; (e) Termination of service in any other way except by way of punishment after completion of ten years of service. " So far as the officers of the Bank are concerned, the respondent-Bank has also framed separate regulations for them, i.e. the Regulations of 1979. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the Regulations of 1979 are applicable to him. " So far as the officers of the Bank are concerned, the respondent-Bank has also framed separate regulations for them, i.e. the Regulations of 1979. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the Regulations of 1979 are applicable to him. The Regulation 49 of the said Regulations of 1979 takes care about the gratuity aspect, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- "49(l) Every officer, shall be eligible for gratuity on : (a) Retirement (b) Death (c) Disablement rendering him unfit for further service as certified by a medical officer approved by the Bank. (d) Resignation after completing ten years of continuous service; or (e) Termination of service in any other way except by way of punishment after completion of 10 years of service. (2) The amount of gratuity payable to an officer shall be one month's pay for every completed year of service, subject to a maximum of 15 month's pay." 8. As per Regulation 49(1) quoted hereinabove, an officer of the Bank shall be entitled to receive gratuity under Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). Reading the aforesaid Clause (e) of the Regulation 49(1) of the Regulations of 1979, it is clear that an officer, whose services are terminated in any other way except by way of punishment, is entitled to gratuity, but so far as the petitioner is concerned, it is not in dispute that his service were terminated by way of punishment after holding disciplinary proceedings, which order was further confirmed by the Madras High Court, therefore, on a plain reading of the Regulation 49, the petitioner is not entitled to amount of gratuity. It is required to be noted that so far as the Regulations of 1970 are concerned, they are applicable to all the employees of the Bank except the offices of the Bank. For the officers of the Bank the Regulations of 1979 have been enacted and the Regulation 49 of the said Regulations deals with the payment of gratuity to the officers and said provisions are applicable to the petitioner as he was an officer of the Bank at the relevant time. It is not the case of the petitioner that his termination order was a simplicitor termination or that it was not passed on any disciplinary grounds. It is not the case of the petitioner that his termination order was a simplicitor termination or that it was not passed on any disciplinary grounds. It is not in dispute that the services of the petitioner were terminated by way of punishment in view of the misconduct committed by him and therefore, by virtue of Regulation 49 of the Regulations of 1979, he is not entitled to gratuity. It is true, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that so far as the Regulations of 1970 are concerned, there is a provision in Regulation 12(2) that the bank can forfeit the amount of gratuity to the extent of loss to the Bank and release the rest of the amount of gratuity. However, as discussed earlier, the Regulations of 1970 are applicable to all other employees of the Bank except the officers, for whom separate regulations have been framed, namely, Regulations of 1979, and the case of the petitioner is governed by the said Regulations of 1979. Apart from that, even in the Regulation 12(2) of the Regulations of 1970, there is a provision in the proviso to said Regulation that notwithstanding anything contained therein, gratuity will be granted to or in respect of an employee governed by the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Officers) Service Regulations, on certain eventualities mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) as quoted above. Even therein it is clearly provided that gratuity will be payable termination of service in any other way except by way of punishment. So far as the Regulations of 1970 are concerned, the same are enacted prior in time and the Regulations of 1979 were incorporated later on, wherein special provisions have been made for payment of gratuity to the officers of the Bank. So far as the Regulations of 1970 are concerned, naturally there can be no reference of the Regulations of 1979, because the Regulations of 1979 were framed later on. Both the learned counsels are also not in a position to point out whether prior to 1979 there were any other rules or regulations in existence for the officers of the Bank. Both the learned counsels are also not in a position to point out whether prior to 1979 there were any other rules or regulations in existence for the officers of the Bank. Even if both the Regulations are read together; it is clear that an officer is not entitled to gratuity in case his services are terminated by way of punishment because in the Regulations of 1979 as well as in the Regulations of 1970 it is provided that an officer shall be entitled to gratuity in case of termination of his services in any other way except by way of punishment. Both these regulations are to be read in harmony. 9. Considering the aforesaid aspect, it is clear that the services of the petitioner were terminated by way of punishment in view of serious misconduct committed by him and in that view of the matter, he is not entitled to receive any amount of gratuity. Under these circumstances, there is no substance in the prayer of the petitioner that he is entitled to higher rate of gratuity from the respondent-Bank. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank fairly submitted that whatever amount has been paid to the petitioner towards gratuity shall not be recovered by the respondent-Bank and the said stand was also taken before the Mumbai High Court. Under these circumstances, in my view, the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief claimed by him regarding higher rate of gratuity as even otherwise he was not entitled to receive any amount of gratuity under the relevant provisions referred above in view of the fact that he was removed from service by way of punishment in view of serious misconduct committed by him. I, therefore, do not find any substance in this writ petition and the same is dismissed. Notice discharged. No order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******