ORDER : A.J. Desai, J. 1. By way of present Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, the appellants-original petitioners have challenged the oral order dated 06.06.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in captioned writ petition by which the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order dated 30.08.2017 in Gratuity Application No. ALC/RJT/48(31)/2015 passed by Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (‘the Act’ for short) as well as the order dated 19.06.2018 passed by Appellate Authority cum Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner in P.G. Appeal No. AH/DY/CLC/48(88)/2017 by which the present appellants are directed to pay the amount of gratuity to the tune of Rs.9,77,440/- with interest at the rate of 10% to the respondent No.1. However, the rate of interest is reduced by the learned Single Judge from 10% to 8% with effect from 16.02.2012. 2. Short facts of the present case are as under: The respondent No.1-employee who was working as a Branch Manager with the appellant Bank was served with show cause notice for departmental inquiry. He was chargesheeted and his services were terminated. The said order was challenged by the employee before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority modified the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and ordered the employee to compulsory retire as a Branch Manager. Thereafter, in the year-2015, the appellant Bank issued a notice dated 23.11.2015 under Section 4(6)(a) of the Act and called upon the respondent that why his gratuity should not be forfeited since he had caused financial loss to the tune of Rs.4.36 Crores to the appellant Bank. The same was replied. However, the Authority forfeited the amount of gratuity. Hence, the said action/order was challenged by the respondent-employee by filing an application under the Act. The Controlling Authority after considering the facts of the case accepted the application and directed the appellants to pay the gratuity of Rs.9,77,440/- with interest at the rate of 10%. The said decision was challenged by the present appellants by way of filing appeal. The Appellate Authority upheld the order passed by the Controlling Authority. Both the orders were challenged in the captioned writ petition. 3. In response to the notice issued by the learned Single Judge, the respondent employee filed his affidavit in reply and opposed the petition filed by the appellants. The Appellate Authority upheld the order passed by the Controlling Authority. Both the orders were challenged in the captioned writ petition. 3. In response to the notice issued by the learned Single Judge, the respondent employee filed his affidavit in reply and opposed the petition filed by the appellants. The learned Single Judge after considering various aspects including the ground of delay in initiating proceedings under the Act, dismissed the petition. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Nagesh Sood for the appellants submits that both the Authorities as well as learned Single Judge have committed an error in interpreting the provisions of Section 4(6)(a) of the Act. By taking us through the notice dated 23.11.2015 issued by the appellant Bank under Section 4(6)(a) of the Act, he would submit that it was specifically alleged against the respondent-employee that Bank has caused financial loss to the tune of Rs.4.36 Crores. He would further submit that since specific amount of financial loss was stated in the notice, the Authorities as well as the learned Single Judge ought not to have accepted the case of the respondent employee. After arguing the matter for some time on this point, he would further submit that if the Court finds that appellant Bank is not able to establish the financial loss, it may be permitted to issue fresh notice available under the provisions of the Act. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the decision of High Court of Punjab & Haryana (F.B.) in case of UCO Bank and Others Versus Anju Mathur reported in 2013 LawSuit (P&H) 1242. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate for the appellants submits that the appeal be accordingly allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Manan Bhatt appearing for the respondent No.1-employee has vehemently opposed this appeal. He would submit that there are concurrent findings of facts by two Authorities as well as learned Single Judge, and hence there is no need to interfere with the same. He would further submit that learned Single Judge has rightly held that the proceedings have been initiated at belated stage and that too after the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority by which the respondent employee was asked to compulsory retire. He would further submit that learned Single Judge has rightly held that the proceedings have been initiated at belated stage and that too after the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority by which the respondent employee was asked to compulsory retire. He would further submit that even the Authorities have miserably failed to establish any loss quantified in terms of money which is mandatory as per under Section 4(6)(a) of the Act. He would further submit that when the respondent employee was departmentally chargesheeted, no such allegations were made about particular financial loss. By taking us through the findings of the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority, he would submit that there are no findings about monetary loss to a particular extent observed by any of the Authorities. He would further submit that principal amount of the gratuity is paid. However, till date interest has not been paid though he is entitled from the year 2012 as ordered by the Authorities as well as by learned Single Judge. By making the aforesaid submissions, he would submit that appeal may be dismissed. 6. Undisputed facts are as under: The respondent was departmentally chargesheeted for certain irregularities for which he was dismissed from the service. In the order dated 09.02.2012 passed by Disciplinary Authority, findings of the said order are reproduced as under : - Failure to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank. - Failure to discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence. - Failure to discharge his duties with utmost integrity and honesty. - Acting otherwise than in his best judgement in the performance of his official duties. 7. Even if the aforesaid order is perused, though some allegations have been been made against the respondent-employee, but there are no findings about monetary loss to the extent of Rs.4.36 Crores as stated in the notice issued by the appellant Bank in the year 2015. Even from the order dated 19.06.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority, we do not find anything about financial loss as alleged by the present appellants. 8. Section 4(6) (a) of the Act reads as under : 4. Even from the order dated 19.06.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority, we do not find anything about financial loss as alleged by the present appellants. 8. Section 4(6) (a) of the Act reads as under : 4. Payment of Gratuity- (1) xxxx (2) xxxx (3) xxxx (4) xxxx (5) xxxx (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 payable to an employee [may be wholly or partially forfeited]- (i) if the services of such employee have been terminated for his riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence on his part, or (ii) if the services of such employee have been terminated for any act which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that such offence is committed by him in the course of his employment. 9. As per Section 4(6)(a) of the Act, the Authority has power to forfeit the amount of gratuity to the extent of the damages or loss so caused as stated hereinabove. The Bank has miserably failed to establish the damage caused to the Bank at the instance of the respondent. Merely stating about the financial loss in the notice is not sufficient to establish that there was loss to the tune of Rs.4.36 Crores caused to the Bank at the instance of the respondent as submitted by the learned advocate for the appellants. 10. Apart from these factual and legal aspects, it is also pertinent to note that the proceedings have been initiated by the Bank at belated stage. That after the order was passed by the Appellate Authority by which the penalty of dismissal from service was reduced to compulsory retirement, notice was issued on 15.09.2015 and order of forfeiture was passed on 23.11.2015. These facts have been considered by learned Single Judge in detail and relevant observations have been made by the learned Single Judge, which are reproduced hereinbelow : “6. The payment of Gratuity Act provides that under Section 7 of the Act a person who is eligible for payment of gratuity is entitled to payment of such amount within 30 days from the date it becomes payable. The payment of Gratuity Act provides that under Section 7 of the Act a person who is eligible for payment of gratuity is entitled to payment of such amount within 30 days from the date it becomes payable. It is open for the authorities under the provisions of Section 4(6) of the Act, notwithstanding the provision of sub section (1) of section 4 to withhold gratuity of an employee whose services have been terminated for any act, wilfull omission or negligence causing any damage or loss or (2) destruction of property belonging to the employer. It is open for the employer to forfeit gratuity to the extent of damage or loss so caused. 6.1 Facts on hand would indicate that before the petitioner could superannuate on 30.04.2012, a statement of allegations and imputations was issued to the petitioner on 26.04.2011. Reading the statement would indicate that certain acts and omissions on the part of the respondent were alleged that he committed while he was the Branch Manager. Instances were set out based on which a departmental inquiry was conducted and an order of dismissal dated 30.04.2012 was passed. Reading the order of penalty initially passed on 09.02.2012 would indicate that the disciplinary authority held that the respondent used his power in an arbitrary manner and sanctioned loans haphazardly without following laid down norms. He was grossly negligent in keeping due diligence etc. He therefore was held to have committed misconduct and was dismissed from service on the ground that he failed to take positive steps to protect the interest of the bank; that he failed to discharge his duties with utmost devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty and acted otherwise in the best performance of his initial duties. 6.2 On an appeal being filed by the respondent, the appellate authority on 13.01.2014 modified the order to that of compulsory retirement on the ground that the inquiry officer had held the charge of lack of honesty and integrity mainly relying on circumstantial evidence. As no direct oral or documentary evidence had been brought on inquiry, a benefit of doubt on the counts as aforesaid was extended to the respondent. After the penalty was modified to that of compulsory retirement on 13.01.2014 till such time the bank did not think it fit to invoke the provisions of Section 4(6) (a) of the Act. As no direct oral or documentary evidence had been brought on inquiry, a benefit of doubt on the counts as aforesaid was extended to the respondent. After the penalty was modified to that of compulsory retirement on 13.01.2014 till such time the bank did not think it fit to invoke the provisions of Section 4(6) (a) of the Act. It was only on 15.09.2015 that the show cause notice in question was given and the same is on record. Reading the show cause notice would indicate that it reiterates the charges that the respondent was imputed with for the misconduct and the notice simply stated that the respondent had caused monetary loss to the bank of Rs.4.36 crores. An order of forfeiture was passed on 23.11.2015. Reading the timeline would indicate that despite a charge-sheet being issued in the year 2011 and the dismissal order of 2012, it was only after the penalty was modified to that of compulsory retirement in January 2014 and after the respondent approached the bank, did the bank think it fit to invoke the provisions of Section 4(6)(a) of the Act.” 11. In view of the above facts, we are in agreement with the findings recorded by learned Single Judge. The appeal is devoid of merits and we do not find any reason to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed. 12. As submitted by learned advocate Mr. Bhatt for the respondent employee that he has received only principal amount of gratuity, we further direct that the appellants shall pay the amount of interest as ordered by learned Single Judge within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, the respondent employee shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 10% from the particular date of the year 2012 i.e. 16.02.2012 till the amount is paid. 13. Consequently connected civil application also stands dismissed.