Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 26 (MAN)

Aribam Priyogopal Sharma v. United Bank of India

2014-03-04

LAXMI KANTA MOHAPATRA

body2014
JUDGMENT Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, Actg. C.J. The petitioner, who was working as an Officer in the United Bank of India and retired from service, has filed this writ application praying for the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ of the like nature or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned letter dated 20.6.2003 from the Zonal Manager (Disciplinary Authority) and also the entire proceedings as illegal and void-ab-initio; (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the deducted and realized amount of Rs. 40,000/- from the retiral benefits with interest at the rate of 18% as admissible under the provision of law as interim measure and also to refund the amount deposited as per Annexure-A/5; 2. So far the first relief is concerned, it relates to a decision to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner on certain charges in Annexure-A/1 to the writ application. By letter dated 20.6.2003 the petitioner, while working as lead District Manager in Imphal Branch, was intimated about his negligence in discharge of duty attached to the post and it is further alleged that because of such negligence of duty, a sum of Rs. 1,10,115.85/- (Rupees One Lakh Ten Thousand One Hundred Fifteen Eighty Five paise) was looted from Takyelpat Branch thereby causing financial loss to the above extent. 3. The petitioner submitted a reply in Annexure-A/4 and the last two paragraphs of the reply which are relevant in this case, are quoted below: Sir, while fixing of amount of subscription, kindly consider the share amount of (i) Ch. Leivang Manager in charge of the branch at the time of cash looting and also share amount of (2) Shri J.P. Kashyap C.O. Inspection Deptt. (H.Q.), who inspected Takyelpat Br. On 22.01.2001. After getting the amount fixed by you, I will arrange for depositing the same. 4. It was contended by Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner that though it was proposed to initiate proceeding in Annexure-A/1 in June, 2003, the Bank did not proceed with the proposed proceeding any further and therefore after lapse of 11 (eleven) years and retirement of the petitioner, the Bank should not be allowed to proceed with any departmental proceeding on the basis of the Annexure-A/1 to the writ petition. 5. It was contended by Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Sr. 5. It was contended by Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Bank that though it was proposed to initiate a departmental proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of the charges, considering the reply of the petitioner that he was willing to deposit his share of the loss sustained by the Bank, no further proceeding was undertaken and on the basis of the above suggestion given by the petitioner in his reply, he also deposited a sum of Rs. 22,023.17/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Twenty Three Seventeen Paise). 6. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted with reference to paragraph 9 of the writ petition that the above amount was deposited under protest and in absence of any enquiry and finding with regard to guilt of the petitioner, such amount could not be recovered from him. 7. In reply, it was contended by Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Bank that the petitioner having agreed to pay his share of the loss sustained by the Bank and he having deposited the above amount, the Bank decided not to proceed any further. Therefore, the question of refund of the above amount to the petitioner does not arise. 8. On careful reading of the reply given by the petitioner, the relevant portion whereof has been quoted above, it is clear that the petitioner requested the Bank to fix the liability so far as his share is concerned and undertook to deposit the same. The Bank did not take up any exercise thereafter to find out the extent to which the petitioner would be made liable for such loss sustained by the Bank and before arriving at any such conclusion the petitioner deposited the above amount. There is nothing on record to show that till today the Bank has come to any specific finding with regard to the extent of liability of the petitioner so far as the loss sustained by the Bank is concerned. Since undertaking given by the petitioner in his reply, as quoted above, was a conditional one and the Bank has not fulfilled the condition as yet, I am of the view that after expiry of 11 years, the Bank should not be allowed to proceed any further specifically after several years from the date of retirement of the petitioner from service and the above amount of Rs. 22,23.17/- should be refunded to the petitioner. 9. So far prayer No. 2 is concerned, Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner did not make any submission. On other hand, he referred to Annexure-A/5 which is another Notice issued to the petitioner by the Bank for recovery of Rs. 72,012.05 paise from the petitioner in respect of cash credit limited allowed by him in favour of a dead person. In respect of the said allegation, it appears that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand). 10. It was contended by Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner no departmental proceeding having been undertaken on the basis of the said charge in Annexure-A/5 to the writ application, the sum of Rs. 50,000/- deposited by the petitioner should be refunded to him. Unfortunately, in the writ application, the petitioner has not prayed for quashing the notice at Annexure-A/5 nor is there any prayer in the writ application for a direction to the Bank not to proceed with any departmental proceeding. In absence of any such prayer, I am not inclined to accede to the submission of Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that no departmental proceeding having been initiated in pursuance of Annexure-A/5, the petitioner should get refund of Rs. 50000/- deposited by him. 11. In the result, the writ application is partly allowed and the respondent No. 1, Bank, is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 22,023.17/- deposited to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.