ORDER Ram Mohan Reddy J.—The Public Road Transport Corporation aggrieved by the order dated September 18, 2008 Annexure-A, of the Controlling Authority' under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, for short 'Act', determining Rs. 1,00,980/- as gratuity reckoning basic pay of Rs. 3,740/- as on August 6, 2004 the date of dismissal of the workman and 27 years of continuous service, and directing payment with interest at 10% p.a., from September 6, 2004, preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority, which when dismissed by order dated November 30, 2009, Annexure-C, has presented this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner advances the following two contentions: (i) The reckoning of 27 years as continuous service rendered by the workman, by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority was on a wrong premise, since the respondent initially was on the badli list with effect from May 21, 1976 and removed by order dated October 19, 1977 where after words, his name was included at the end of the select list, w.e.f. August 12, 1987, pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court, and when placed on probation w.e.f. July 7, 1989 was dismissed from service on August 6, 2004 for acts of misappropriation of the funds of the petitioner Corporation. According to the learned counsel, the total service rendered by the respondent was 15 years. (ii) In the order dated August 6, 2004, dismissing the workman, it was specifically pointed out that as the acts of misconduct committed was misappropriation of public revenue, the gratuity amount was forfeited and hence, an order in compliance with Section 4 of the Act. 2. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, candid in his submission, admits the dates when the petitioner's name was included in the badli list, removed from the list and once again re-listed and brought on probation as well as the dismissal. In addition, learned counsel submits that the forfeiture of gratuity by order dated August 6, 2004, while terminating the service of the workman, not being preceded by notice in compliance with Section 4 of the "Act", the Corporation was liable to pay the gratuity. 3. In addition, learned counsel submits that the forfeiture of gratuity by order dated August 6, 2004, while terminating the service of the workman, not being preceded by notice in compliance with Section 4 of the "Act", the Corporation was liable to pay the gratuity. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the orders impugned, indisputably, the workman served the Corporation while on the badli list from May 21, 1976 to October 19, 1977 and thereafter from August 12, 1987 to July 7, 1989 when brought on probation and terminated on August 6, 2004. In that view of the matter, the respondent workman served the Corporation for a period of 16 years and 6 months. The fact that the petitioner Corporation did not place relevant material to establish that the respondent had not worked continuously for 240 days while on the badli list, disentitles it to assert that the period spent while on the badli list ought to be excluded from continuous service as defined under Section 2A of the 'Act'. The Authorities below, therefore, committed an error in reckoning 27 years of service rendered by the respondent. 4. The second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is without, merit. In Bharath Gold Mines Limited v. Regional Labour Commissioner 1994-III-LLJ-54 (Kant), a Division Bench of this Court observed that the employer is required to take an independent decision after the termination of service of an employee as to whether the gratuity payable should at all be forfeited in: case which fall under Section 4(6)(a)(b) of the Act. A co-ordinate Division Bench in Vijaya Bank and Others Vs. Sri Mohan Das Ramana Shetty, ILR (2008) KAR 5022 observed that when a Bank employee is dismissed from service for allowing overdrawings without prior approval of the Controlling Authority, thereby causing loss to the Bank the decision to forfeit gratuity can be taken only after quantifying the amount of loss and after affording opportunity to the employee to present his defence against the decision proposed, and where no proceeding is initiated by the Bank for assessment of loss caused by employee, gratuity cannot be forfeited. 5. Having regard to the mandate of Section 46(a)(b), before forfeiting the gratuity amount, the petitioner employer ought to have extended an opportunity of hearing to the respondent employee over the proposal to forfeit the amount of gratuity. 5. Having regard to the mandate of Section 46(a)(b), before forfeiting the gratuity amount, the petitioner employer ought to have extended an opportunity of hearing to the respondent employee over the proposal to forfeit the amount of gratuity. Even otherwise, the statutory provision for forfeiture of gratuity when construed strict the petitioner Corporation, was required to prove before the Controlling Authority the extent of damage or loss caused by the employee for acts of alleged misconduct by reason of which the employee is disentitled to gratuity. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the reasons, findings and conclusions arrived at by the Authorities under the Act directing payment of gratuity. 6. In the circumstances, the orders of the Authorities under the Act call for interference in so far as it relates to the calculation of gratuity by reckoning continuous service as 27 years instead of 16 years and 6 months and reckoning the said period the respondent is entitled to Rs. 62,084/- (Rs. 3,740/- x 16.6), in accordance with the KSRTC Gratuity Regulation, since more beneficial than a calculation under the Act. In the result, this petition is allowed in part. The orders impugned are modified entitling the respondent workman to Rs. 62,084/- as gratuity with interest at 10% from September 6, 2004. 7. If the amount in deposit exceeds the amount to which the respondent workman is entitled, such excess amount is directed to be refunded to the petitioner.