JUDGMENT : Smt . Vimla Jain, J. - Thepetitioner, being aggrieved by order dated 7.9.2011 (Annexure P/1) passed inSecond Appeal No. 137/2010 by respondent No. 2 M.P. State Cooperative TribunalBhopal, confirming the order dated ,2.6.2010 (Annexure P/2) passed byrespondent No. 3 Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sagar directing the petitioner/ Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit , Panna (for brevity petitioner-Bank) to release a sum of Rs . 76,069/- to respondent No. 1 Rajju Khan along with the interest has come to this Court by filing a writ petitionunder Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2.Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 served thepetitioner-Bank as a Branch Manager and retired on 31.8.2011. The Primary CooperativeSocieties, working under his supervision, were allocated the distribution ofpesticides including its storage, control and supervision during his posting asBranch Manger, Branch Shahnagar . But due to hiscarelessness, the pesticides could not be sold and returned back to M.P.Agro Industries and Development Corporation and thus aloss had occurred to the W.P. No. 18086 of 2011, Decided on 13.12.2011petitioner-Bank. Therefore, a detailed enquiry was conducted against respondentNo.1 for the loss incurred to the petitioner-Bank and it was decided to recovera sum of Rs.76 ,069 /- from the retiral benefits of the respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 had taken voluntary retirementon 31.8.2011 and pursuant thereto, the petitioner-Bank had released all the retiral dues to respondent No.1 but from the gratuity ofRs.1 ,83,000 /-, the aforesaid sum of Rs.76,069/- wasdeducted and the balance amount was paid to respondent No.1. 3.Being dissatisfied by such action of the petitioner-Bank, the respondent No.1submitted a claim under Section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960(hereinafter referred to as the "Act") before respondent No.3 JointRegistrar, Sagar who in turn transferred it torespondent No.4 Assistant Registrar, Panna fordisposal. The Assistant Registrar, Panna , by itsorder Annexure P/3 dated 9.6.2008 directed the petitioner-Bank to refund a sumof Rs.76 ,069 /- to respondent No.1 along with interest.The order Annexure P/3 dated 9.6.2008 was challenged by the petitioner-Bankbefore the respondent No.3-Joint Registrar, Sagar whoby its order Annexure P/2 dated 2.6.2010 in Case No.78-45/2008 dismissed theappeal. Being dissatisfied with the orders dated 9.6.2008 and 2.6.2010, thepetitioner-Bank filed Second Appeal No. 137/2010 before the respondent No.2M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal, which vide its order Annexure P/1 dated7.9.2011 dismissed the second appeal. Hence, the petitioner has filed thepresent writ petition. Being dissatisfied with the orders dated 9.6.2008 and 2.6.2010, thepetitioner-Bank filed Second Appeal No. 137/2010 before the respondent No.2M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal, which vide its order Annexure P/1 dated7.9.2011 dismissed the second appeal. Hence, the petitioner has filed thepresent writ petition. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Bank can recover theloss occurred to it from the gratuity of the respondent. He placed reliance inthe case of Secretary, ONGC Limited and another vs. V.U. Warrier reported in 2005 (5) SCC 245 . It is also submitted that the penalty by way ofrecovery of Rs.76 ,069 /- was imposed in thedepartmental enquiry held against the respondent No.1. It was argued that M.P. State Agro Industries andDevelopment Corporation was necessary party but the said Corporation was notmade a party in the authority/Tribunal. Thus, on these grounds, the petitiondeserves to be allowed. 5.The Apex Court in Secretary, ONGC Limited and another vs. V.U. Warrior (supra)held thus:- "Respondentofficer of ONGC, after retirement did not vacate official quarter allotted tohim, even after four months' time granted to him. His prayer for extension oftime was rejected in view of several officers waiting for quarter. He was alsoinformed that penal rent as per ONGC's policy wouldbe recovered from him on his not vacating the quarter within time. Butrespondent vacated the quarter only after eviction proceedings were initiatedagainst him. In these circumstances it was need that the action of ONGC ofdeducting penal rent from gratuity in terms of the Regulations was not arbitrary,unlawful or unreasonable. ONGC had a right to withhold gratuity by deductingthe amount found due to it and payable by respondent towards penal charges forunauthorized occupation of the quarters." 6.The citation referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner has no directbearing on the facts of the instant case, 7.The right to gratuity is a statutory right of the respondent who took voluntaryretirement. It is a fact that his services were not terminated by the Bank.Therefore, he is entitled to full amount of gratuity. It is a fact that his services were not terminated by the Bank.Therefore, he is entitled to full amount of gratuity. It will be appropriate toquote the relevant legal, provisions which reads thus : - Section4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 provides thus : "Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub section (1), (a)the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act,willful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destructionof, property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of thedamage or loss so caused; (b) the gratuity payable to an employee may be wholly orpartially forfeited; ( i ) if the services of suchemployee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or anyother act of violence on his part, or 8.It is clear that the dispute was between the manager and its employer-bank. Themanager had no claim against the M.P. Agro Industries and DevelopmentCorporation. The bank did not choose to file any application before theauthorities and Tribunal to make M.P. Agro Industries and DevelopmentCorporation as party. Therefore, such objection is not sustainable before thisCourt. 9.It is a fact that the respondent had taken voluntary retirement before hissuperannuation. The petitioner permitted his voluntary retirement. It is also afact that his services had not been terminated on the ground of any misconduct.Therefore his gratuity cannot be forfeited under Section 4 (6) of the paymentof Gratuity Act 1972. Thus, the forfeiture of gratuity of the respondent by thepetitioner was illegal. 10.For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition.Therefore, we dismiss the petition at the stage of motion hearing itself.