JUDGMENT 1. - The judgment and order dated 27.3.2012 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7002/2008 affirming the decision dated 8.5.2008 of the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Ajmer constitutes the subject matter of scrutiny in the present appeal. 2. We have heard Ms. Anita Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shashank Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 and Mr. Dharmendra Jain, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 3. The facts, in brief, necessary for appropriately comprehending the rival contentions would be indispensably essential. The appellant-writ-petitioner is a Banking Institution constituted under the provisions of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Act of 1959") and the respondent no. 3 at the relevant point of time before being compulsorily retired was in its (appellant-Bank) service. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent no. 3 essentially on the charge that while he had been posted as Branch Manager, Ghaziabad Branch of the appellant-Bank during the period from 23.7.1992 to 10.2.1994, he had committed serious acts of misconduct and lapses relating to grant of term loan to various parties causing loss of Rs. 4,16,055/- to it o (appellant-Bank). As many as five charges were levelled against him and on the completion of the departmental enquiry by order dated 20.5.2004 of the Disciplinary Authority-General Manager (Operations), a penalty of compulsory retirement from the appellant-Bank's service was imposed on him in terms of Regulation 67(h) of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations"). While recording this penalty, it was inter-alia also observed that due to his sheer dereliction of duty and failure to observe the prescribed instructions in respect of sanction and conduct of loans under SLRS and SCP Schemes, an amount of Rs. 5,40,797/- had become difficult to recover and had to be written off and that a sum of Rs. 1,24,742/- could eventually be retrieved. There is no wrangle at the Bar that this disciplinary action resulting in imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement has become final. 4. 5,40,797/- had become difficult to recover and had to be written off and that a sum of Rs. 1,24,742/- could eventually be retrieved. There is no wrangle at the Bar that this disciplinary action resulting in imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement has become final. 4. It was thereafter that by the memorandum dated 17.5.2005 in terms of the Act and the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 (for short, hereafter referred to as "the Rules"), the respondent no.3's dues by way of gratuity were sought to be forfeited to the extent of the damages or loss so caused to the appellant-Bank. The Executive Committee of the Board was thereby requested to approve the forfeiture of the gratuity amount payable to the respondent no. 3. It was clearly mentioned therein that due to the dereliction of duty and lapses on his part, the appellant-Bank had suffered a net loss of Rs. 4,16,055/- as quantified by the Disciplinary Authority. 5. Being aggrieved, the respondent no. 3 filed an application before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Jaipur and Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, which was registered as case no. JP-48(2)/2006-S-RLC and eventually, the same was allowed by order dated 9.10.2006 and the appellant-Bank was directed to make payment of gratuity to him to the tune of Rs. 3,50,000/- together with interest of 10% for the period as mentioned therein. The appellant-Bank having unsuccessful in appeal against this order before the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Ajmer, turned to this Court for redress. 6. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Single Judge referring to Section 4(6) of the Act in particular held in essence that the compulsory retirement of the respondent no. 3 did not tantamount to termination of his service as comprehended in the said statutory provision and thus, upheld the determinations made by the aforementioned Authorities under the Act. 7. Ms. Agarwal has argued that having regard to the factual background and the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on the respondent no.3, the same did amount to termination of his service as envisaged under section 4(6) of the Act and thus, the appellant-Bank was within its authority to forfeit the amount of gratuity otherwise payable to him to the extent of the loss caused by him to the appellant-Bank by his proved misconduct. According to the learned counsel, the penalty of compulsory retirement having been awarded to the respondent no. 3 for his established dereliction of duty and lapses resulting in loss to the appellant-Bank, Section 4 (6) of the Act was clearly applicable in the attendant facts and circumstances and thus, the finding to the contrary being erroneous is liable to be interfered with. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, as against this, has submitted that the termination as contemplated in Section 4(6) of the Act is either dismissal or removal from service and that thus, his (respondent no.3) compulsory retirement does not entail forfeiture of his dues by way of gratuity to which he is otherwise entitled in law. According to the learned counsel, the interpretation as adopted by the learned Single Judge is valid and thus, no interference with the impugned judgment and order is warranted. 9. We have considered the pleaded facts and the documents on record. We have also extended our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. 10. That as a disciplinary measure, penalty by way of compulsory retirement had been awarded to the respondent no. 3 is a matter of record. Such action has also become final and he in-fact had been exited from service on account of this disciplinary action. To reiterate, the memorandum dated 17.5.2005 drawn up for approval of the Executive Committee of the Board to effect forfeiture of the gratuity payable to the respondent no. 3 would in clear terms disclose that in view of the proved serious acts of misconduct and lapses on his part, the appellant- Bank had suffered a net loss of Rs. 4,16,055/- and that in terms of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, such an appropriatory step to the extent of damages or loss caused to the appellant-Bank was proposed. It is this proposed forfeiture that was assailed before the Authorities under the Act, as referred to hereinabove. That the appellant- Bank had suffered a loss of Rs. 4,16,055/- is also evident from the order dated 20.5.2004 awarding the penalty of compulsory retirement to the respondent no.3. 11. Section 4(6) of the Act is set out hereinbelow for ready reference:- "4. That the appellant- Bank had suffered a loss of Rs. 4,16,055/- is also evident from the order dated 20.5.2004 awarding the penalty of compulsory retirement to the respondent no.3. 11. Section 4(6) of the Act is set out hereinbelow for ready reference:- "4. Payment of gratuity : (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1),- (a) the gratuity of an employee whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused; (b) the gratuity...." 12. Regulation 49 of the Regulations is also relevant and thus, is abstracted hereinbelow:- "Regulation 49-Gratuity; (1) 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." 13. Whereas in terms of Section 4(6), the gratuity of an employee, whose services have been terminated for any act, wilful omission or negligence causing any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer, shall be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused, as per Regulation 49 (l)(e), every officer of the appellant-Bank shall be eligible for gratuity on termination of service in any other way except by way of punishment after completion of 10 years of service."The word "termination" is defined in the Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition thus:- "Termination:- End in time of existence; close; cessation, conclusion..." 14. As per Webster's Third New International Dictionary, the word "termination" means "end in time or existence; close, cessation, conclusion..; the act of terminating; act of setting bounds or bringing to an end or concluding." 15. On a conjoint reading of Section 4(6) and Regulation 49(1 )(e), it is thus more than apparent that when the service of any employee of the appellant-Bank is terminated by way of punishment for any act of wilful omission or negligence and that such act had resulted in any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to it, his/her gratuity would be forfeited to the extent of the damage or loss so caused. The word "shall" used in Section 4(6) obligates such a step. 16. The word "termination" as the dictionary meaning proclaims is to bring to an end or cause cessation of the employer-employee relationship when viewed singularly in the employment perspective. True it is that such an incidence of severance of the relationship of employer- employee may occur in several eventualities i.e. dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement as well as termination simplicitor. That compulsory retirement is also a mode to snap the employer-employee bond, does not call for any debate. The mandate of forfeiture of gratuity of an employee as engrafted in Section 4(6) of the Act is unmistakably laden with punitive element. Thereby, an employee whose services have been terminated for any act of wilful omission or negligence on his/her part resulting in damage or loss to, or destruction of, property of the employer, would have to suffer forfeiture of his/her gratuity otherwise due to him/her in law to the extent of damage or loss so caused by his/her act of omission or negligence. This is also evident from the Regulation 49(1 )(e) of the Regulations. The word "termination" thus, in our view, would have to be comprehended in the sense as applied by the legislature and a plain meaning thereof has to be attributed to it in order to delineate its sweep and amplitude to actualise the consequences intended. That this word would derive its meaning also in the context in which it has been used as well as from the purpose designed to serve cannot be lost sight of as well. Having regard to the underlying objective of Section 4(6) of the Act, in our opinion, the word "termination" has to be provided a meaning that would advance the purpose thereof and not scuttle the same. 17. Following excerpts from the celebrated dissertation in Maxwell On The interpretation of Statutes, Twelfth Edition would be apt : "Where, by the use of clear and unequivocal langauge capable of only one meaning, anything is enacted by the legislature, it must be enforced however harsh or absurd or contrary to common sense the result may be. 17. Following excerpts from the celebrated dissertation in Maxwell On The interpretation of Statutes, Twelfth Edition would be apt : "Where, by the use of clear and unequivocal langauge capable of only one meaning, anything is enacted by the legislature, it must be enforced however harsh or absurd or contrary to common sense the result may be. The interpretation of a statute is not to be collected from any notions which may be entertained by the court as to what is just and expedient: words are not to be construed, contrary to their meaning, as embracing or excluding cases merely because no good reason appears why they should not be embraced or excluded. The duty of the court is to expound the law as. it stands, and to "leave the remedy (if one be resolved upon) to others. The so-called "golden rule" is really a modification of the literal rule. It was stated in this way by Parke B.: "It is a very useful rule, in the construction of a statute, to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with the intention of the legislature, to be collected from the statute itself, or leads to any manifest absurdity or repugnance, in which case the language may be varied or modified, so as to avoid such inconvenience, but no further." If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation, we should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility and should rather accept the bolder construction based on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result." 18. On an overall consideration of all relevant aspects, factual and legal, we find ourselves in respectful disagreement with the views expressed by the learned Single Judge. In our comprehension, the word "termination" used in Section 4(6) of the Act envisages any mode of extinction of service of any employee by way of punishment, be it dismissal or removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be. As in the case in hand, the respondent no. 3 was compulsorily retired by way of a disciplinary measure on his proved misconduct resulting in financial loss to the appellant-Bank to the tune of Rs. As in the case in hand, the respondent no. 3 was compulsorily retired by way of a disciplinary measure on his proved misconduct resulting in financial loss to the appellant-Bank to the tune of Rs. 4,16,055/-, we are of the unhesitant opinion that it (appellant-Bank) was within its competence and authority to initiate a process of forfeiture of his (respondent no.3) dues towards gratuity by way of adjustment against the amount of loss. Needless to say, however, that before effecting such forfeiture, the appellant-Bank would be obliged in law to complete the necessary formalities as legally prescribed. 19. In the above view of the matter, we find merit in the appeal and it is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 27.3.2012 of the learned Single Judge as well as the orders dated 8.5.2008 of the Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) Ajmer and 9.10.2006 of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Jaipur and Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 are hereby interfered with. *******