Judgment Garusharan Sharma, J. 1. The petitioner, a retired employee of the pubjab National Bank, has filed this application for a direction to the respondent-Bank to pay an amount of Rs 39, 400/-which has been deducted from out of his Contributory Provident Fund dues. 2. That petitioners case is that on the verge of his retirement, a charge sheet dated 17-9-1990 (Anaexure-1) was issued to him by the Bank An enquiry was held and the Disciplinary Authority, respondent No 4, passed an order on 26-l2-1999 (Annexure-2) imposing upon the petitioner the minor penalty of recovery of Rs.39,400-/ only from pay or such other amount as may be found due to him, on account of part pecuniary loss of Rs.53, 400/-caused to the Bank due to his negligence. The petitioner retired from the banks service on 31-12-1990. However, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which was rejected on 22-10-1992 and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, was confirmed. The said appellate order was communicated to the patitioner on 10-12-1992 vide annexure-3 to the writ application. 3. According to the petitioner, the respondent-Bank has framed contributory provident fund scheme, which is called as "the Punjanb National bank Employees Provident Fund" and accordingly framed Rules thereto. The scheme of payment of pension is not applicable in the Banks service and in lieu of the pension, on superannuation, an employee of the Bank is entitled to get the payment of contributory, provident fund balance as retiral benefit. 4. The respondent-Bank has paid the provident fund balance to the petitioner after deducting the amount of Rs.39, 400/-from the total outstanding amount payable to him and thereby the Rules framed in this regard have been violated and the petitioner is entitled to get the said amount. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Bank stating. Inter alia, that the petitioner retired from the service of the Bank with effect from 1-1-1991 and after his retirement, all the admissible retirement dues have been paid to him except Rs.39, 400/-which has been deducted out of the provident found dues, from the contributions of the Bank in his contributory provident fund account. The aforesaid deduction has been made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 13 of the Punjab National bank Employees Provident Fund Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the rules ). 6. Mr. The aforesaid deduction has been made in accordance with the provisions of Rule 13 of the Punjab National bank Employees Provident Fund Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the rules ). 6. Mr. Rameshwar Sharma, the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the respondent-Bank was not empowered to deduct the said amount of Rs.39,400/- from the provident fund balance of the petitioner The balance amount of the said fund, being the petitioners property, the respondent Bank had no authority to deprive him there from. Mr. Sharma, placed reliance upoa the case of Union of India V/s. Jyoti Chit Fund and Finance and others [ air 1976 SC 1163 ] and submitted that the provident fund amount shall retain its character until it reaches the hands of the employee and the same cannot even be attached by court Attachment is possible and lawful only after such amounts are received by the employee. 7. On the other hand. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank submitted that the Bank was empowered to deduct the amount in question from out of the contributions made by it to the individual account of contributory provident fund of the petitioner and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 8. According to Rule 2 (vi) provident Fund Balance shall mean and include employees own contribution and Banks contribution and interest on both as also the amount of bonus and interest thereon which the Bank may have made over to the Trustees for credit to the Individual account of the member. Further, as per Rule 2 (vii) "banks contribution" shall mean and include contribution made by the Bank to the members provident fund account plus interest thereon and the amount of bonus granted by the Bank plus interest thereon. 9. Rules 13, 14 and 15 of the said Employees Provident Fund Rules, 1977 read as under :- " (13) The Bank shall have first lien on the contributions made by it to the individual account of any member together with interest thereon or accretions thereto, to recover any loss, damages and liabilities which the Bank may at any time sustain or incur by reason of any dishonest act, deed or omission, or grots misconduct of, or by such member. (14) If any member shall be dismissed or discharged from the service of the Bank for embezzlement or any dishonest act, deed or omission, or misconduct resulting in loss to the Bank, the trustees shall on application of the Board of Directors pay to the Board out of such members individual account in the Fund such portion thereof not exceeding the Banks contribution to it, as the Directors might ask the Trustees to pay, and the demand of the Directors and the receipt of the Bank for anv payment so made, shall be complete discharge to the Trustees. In the event of any such payment of the remaining amount out of the Provident fund balance shall be paid to him The recovery of such losses by the Bank shall be limited to the extent of such financial loss only. (15) Subject to the above rules the amount standing to the credit of a member shall be payable to him on retirement, resignation or discharge, if he shall have served the Bank for a period of at least 10 years or if he shall have been retired by the Bank on attaining the usual age of retirement in the Bank or if he shall have been duly certified by a medical authority recognized by the board of Directors as incapacitated for further service or if his services shall have been dispensed with in consequence of reduction or reorganisation of establishment, and not from any fault of his own. " 10. In this regard, Rule 32 of the Rules is also relevant. "32. Every employee when joining the Fund, shall subscribe an agreement in the following form :- I declare that I have read all the foregoing rules of Punjab National bank Employees Provident Fund, and I hereby subscribe and agree to be bound by the said rules as they now are or as they may be amended by the Trustees hereafter. " 11 So far as the submission of the petitioners counsel based on the case of Union of India (Supra) is concerned, the said decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. " 11 So far as the submission of the petitioners counsel based on the case of Union of India (Supra) is concerned, the said decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the said case, the Supreme court was dealing with the Provident Fund under the Provident Fund Act, 1925, wherein the employer had no contribution at all and the entire amount of the fund was contributed by the employee concerned, wherreas in the present case, we ate, concerned with the contributory provident fund in which both the employer and employee have made contributions and the employer has first lien on the contributions made by it to the individual account of the employee in accordance with the aforementioned Rule 13 and. therefore, the ratio of the said decision is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. 12. Further, in view of the declaration and agreement by the petitioner as provided under Rule 32 of the Rules, the petitioner is bound by the provisions of the Rule including Rule 13. The submission of the petitioners counsel that such deductions can only be made 4n cae of dismissal or discharge of the employee from the services of the Bank as provided under Rule 14 of the Rules, is not correct. In this regard, Rule 15 of the rules provides that "subject to the above rules" which obvibusly includes Rule 13, the amount standing to the credit of a member emolovee shall be payable to him on retirement, resignation or discharge, if he had served the Bank for a period of at least 10 years. 13. According to the counter affidavit of the respondent-Bank, in the case of the petitioner, the respondent-Bank had first lien over a sum of Rs.65, 500/-which was contributed by it to the provident fund account of the petitioner, and therefore, as per Rule 13 of the Rules, the Bank "as entitled to deduct the said amount of Rs.39,400/- from its aforementioned contributions to the provident fund balance of the petitioner. 14. 14. In the circumstances, in my view, the provisions of the Rule 13 of the Rules was binding on the petitioner and the Bank having first lien over its contributions towards the contributory provident fund balance of the petitioner, was entitled to deduct the said amount of Rs.39,400/- on account of part pecuniary loss caused to the Bank due to the petitioners negligence. 15. In the result, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in this writ application and it is accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.