JUDGMENT Radha Mohan Prasad, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26th August, 1978 passed in Title Suit No. 54 of 1975 by the Subordinate Judge, Samastipur. 2. The defendants are the appellants. The plaintiff respondent filed suit for issue of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to regularise their current account standing at Patori Sub-Office of the State Bank of India and for crediting a sum of Ps. 10,000/- claimed to have been deposited by them on 24.3.1973, to their account. 3. In short, the relevant facts are that the plaintiff transacted business with the said Sub-Office and accordingly deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in cash on 24.3.1973 at the said Sub-Office through pay-in-slip and after deposit the then Officer-in-Charge of Patori signed the counterfoil of pay-in-slip and also put seal of the Bank thereon in proof of the deposit and issued the receipt to the plaintiff. It is claimed that the amount so deposited was also entered in the book of accounts of the Sub-Office at Patori. 4. The plaintiff drew a cheque bearing No. BD/11 735851 for Rs. 4,000/- on the State Bank of India, Sub-Office, Patori which was dishonoured on 6.9.1974 on the ground that there was lien for Rs. 10,000/- for wrong deposit on 24.3.1973, whereafter he started verification of the statement of account from which it transpired that the deposit of Rs. 10,000/- through pay-in-slip does not appear to have been mentioned therein. A deposit of Rs. 501/- made by the plaintiffs on 24.5.1973 through pay-in-slip was also not mentioned. Thereafter the plaintiff wrote letter to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India. Hajipur on 20.8.1974 for removal of the above alleged discrepancies, whereupon the discrepancy regarding the deposit of Rs. 501/- was corrected, but nothing was done in respect of other discrepancies. The plaintiff wrote several letters to the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Hajipur, General Manager (Operation), State Bank of India, Patna and to the Chairman of the Bank for removing the alleged discrepancies from his current account, but nothing was done. The plaintiff served a registered notice through a lawyer and when the discrepancies were still not removed, he filed the present suit for the reliefs mentioned above. 5. The plaintiff served a registered notice through a lawyer and when the discrepancies were still not removed, he filed the present suit for the reliefs mentioned above. 5. A written statement on behalf of the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Hajipur (defendant no.3) was filed in which besides taking technical objections it was stated that Patori Sub-Office was under the direct control of Hajipur Branch and the ledger of the accounts of the Sub-Office is maintained at Branch Office and the Sub-Office has to send statement of each day's transaction with all vouchers to the parent Branch Office after posting in proforma ledger at Sub-Office. The principle underlying Sub-Office business procedure is that the accounts are operated from the Sub-Office and the Branch Office maintains the real account of the receipts. The Sub-Office does not grant receipts on Bank account. It can issue only provisional acknowledgment in respect of cash or other statement there at which has to be subsequently confirmed by the parent Branch. At the Sub-Office a notice written in English and in the principal local language is displayed on the notice board warning the constituents against accepting acknowledgment other than on the Bank's printed and numbered form, a specimen of which was also affixed along with the said notice. 6. According to the defendant, counterfoil of the pay-in-slip is not the valid receipt of deposit. A receipt for deposit of cash at Sub-Office is granted on B.S. 5A form which is supplied by the Branch Office. It is stated that the plaintiff did not deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 24.3.1973 and no receipt on B.S. 5A was granted to him. The statement of daily transaction dated 24.3.1973 which was sent by the Sub-Office Patori to the Branch Office, Hajipur did not also show any deposit of such amount and hence the plaintiff is not entitled to get any credit for this amount. It is alleged that since the plaintiff was very kith and kin with Mr. B.K. Singh, the Officer-in-Charge of Sub-Office, Patori, he, managed to obtain a pay-in-slip receipt which is not a valid and proper receipt for deposit of the amount in the Sub-Office. It is alleged that since the plaintiff was very kith and kin with Mr. B.K. Singh, the Officer-in-Charge of Sub-Office, Patori, he, managed to obtain a pay-in-slip receipt which is not a valid and proper receipt for deposit of the amount in the Sub-Office. It is further stated that a statement of account on printed form is regularly sent by the Hajipur parent Branch office to the customers and there is instruction at the foot of the, statement of account that if any discrepancy is found it should be immediately reported for rectification. The defendants denied the charge that the plaintiff was not regularly furnished with the statement of account and this is why he could not complain about it earlier. As regards the deposit of Rs. 501/-, it is stated that the same could not be credited due to misposting of the same in the ledger and the error was subsequently detected and was rectified. It is, thus, contended that since the plaintiff has got no valid receipt on B.S. 5A form for deposit of Rs. 10,000/- on 24.3.1973 he is not entitled to get this amount credited to his account. 7. Issues were framed and the evidences were led before the trial court. The trial court has fully relied upon the receipt (Ext. 1/e) allegedly signed by the Officer-in-Charge of the Bank on the pay-in-slip showing deposit of Rs. 10,000/- and held that if this amount was not duly accounted for by the Sub-Office on account of misconduct of its employee, the plaintiff cannot suffer. It has further been held that since the employees of the Sub-Office of the State Bank of India at Patori were under the direct control and supervision of the Branch Office, Hajipur, the plaintiff is entitled to get credit of this amount to his account and that if the account was not shown in the daily statement of transaction by the Sub- Office, the Branch Office may take necessary legal steps against its employees, but the plaintiff cannot suffer for their misconduct. Accordingly, the trial court held that the plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 10.000/- on 24.3.1973 in the Sub-Office of the State Bank of India at Patori and decreed the suit. 8. It is contended by Mr. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bank that the trial court has committed grave error in relying upon receipt (Ext. Accordingly, the trial court held that the plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 10.000/- on 24.3.1973 in the Sub-Office of the State Bank of India at Patori and decreed the suit. 8. It is contended by Mr. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bank that the trial court has committed grave error in relying upon receipt (Ext. 1/e) on the counterfoil of pay-in-slip. It is submitted that this kind of manipulation has been prevailing in various Sub-Offices in the State and the Officer-in-Charge of some of the Sub-Offices in collusion with the alleged depositors are indulging in all such activities in complete violation of the rules relating to such deposit in Form B.S. 5A for which a notice was displayed on the notice board warning the constituents against accepting acknowledge-ment other than on the Bank's printed and numbered form. According to him, though a specimen, of the same was also affixed along with the said notice, yet the plaintiff is claiming credit of the alleged deposit of Rs. 10,000/- on the basis of the receipt (Ext. 1/e), which is not granted on B.S. 5A supplied by the Branch Office. Learned counsel further submitted that the trial court has totally not considered this aspect of the matter which vitiates the judgment on this account alone, besides that no cogent evidence has been adduced by the plaintiff in support of his claim. 9. Earlier Mr. Maitin, learned Advocate had entered appearance for the sole respondent but he states that despite his best efforts, he could not get instructions from the sole respondent. 10. I find substance in the submission of Mr. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants that any receipt issued contrary to the rules or not in prescribed form cannot bind the Bank even if it is true that the same was granted by the Officer-in-Charge. It is not disputed that in the Sub-Office a notice written in English and in the principal local language was displayed on the notice board in terms of the rules of the Bank warning the constituents against accepting acknowledgment other than on the Bank's printed and numbered form. It is also not disputed that the specimen of the same was also affixed along with the said notice. It is an admitted fact that no receipt on B.S. 5A was granted to the plaintiff for the alleged deposit of Rs. It is also not disputed that the specimen of the same was also affixed along with the said notice. It is an admitted fact that no receipt on B.S. 5A was granted to the plaintiff for the alleged deposit of Rs. 10,000/- by him on 24.3.1973. It has also come in evidence that the statement of daily transaction dated 24.3.1973 which was sent by the Sub-Office, Patori to the Branch Office, Hajipur did not show any such deposit of Rs. 10,000/-. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, the trial court was not legally justified in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to get credit of the amount to his account and that if the account has not been shown in the daily statement of transaction by the Sub-Office, the Branch Office may take necessary legal steps against its employees, but the plaintiff cannot suffer for their misconduct. 11. It is well settled that the State cannot be bound by the unauthorised acts of its employees-far from it being so, bound by acts which are plainly illegal. In Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Rita Mishra vs. Director, Primary Education, Bihar, reported in 1987 PLJR 1090 , it was held that no concept of promissory estoppel arises against the State if its servants either act beyond the scope of their duty or in contravention of its directions or standing administrative instructions. In the case of Chetlal Sao and another vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 1986 BBCJ 109 : 1986 PLJR 149 , a Full Bench of this Court held as under;- "To conclude on this aspect, the answer to question no. 3 is rendered in the negative and it is held that the State is not bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel for the acts of its subordinates done in violation of its directions or administrative instructions." 12. In the present case, even if the case of the plaintiff is accepted that the Officer-in-Charge of Patori Sub-Office received the amount in question and delivered him the receipt on counterfoil of pay-in-slip the same cannot bind the Bank as, undisputedly, the rules relating to the same was completely violated. Besides this, the plaintiff should also have been cautious in handing over the money and should have demanded a proper receipt on B.S. 5A form in view of the notice hung on the notice board. Besides this, the plaintiff should also have been cautious in handing over the money and should have demanded a proper receipt on B.S. 5A form in view of the notice hung on the notice board. If this is not done, the plaintiff is bound to suffer even if it is accepted that he deposited the money with the then Officer-in-Charge of the Bank. I am informed by Mr. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bank that it is a fact that the said Officer-in-Charge committed several such irregularities and misappropriation and he was punished by his dismissal from service. 13. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the impugned judgment and decree is set aside. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order to costs.