JUDGMENT : 1. The Court: The claim in the suit is arising out of misappropriation of amount collected by the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff says that the defendant was an employee of the plaintiff and was authorized to collect all types of charges on account of tickets. It is submitted that during the course of his employment, the defendant collected a sum of Rs.19,20,922/- from the customers of the petitioner on account of charges for train and air tickets and also on account of the charges for arrangement of tour and travels. The petitioner, unaware of such collection of funds, when approached the customers to pay the required charges, was informed by the said customers that the defendant had already collected the amounts payable on account of air tickets and for tour and travels. The defendant although collected the said amount, but did not deposit the said amount with the petitioner. The petitioner became aware of such misappropriation demanded payment of the said sum, when the defendant executed a bond dated 14th June, 2017 and issued three several post dated cheques in favour of the petitioner towards discharge of his debt. The said cheques, however, on presentation were dishonoured and returned to the petitioner with the endorsement “payment stopped by the drawer”. 3. In the affidavit-in-opposition it is contended on behalf of the defendant that the defendant was a staff of the petitioner and his duty was to issue tickets and he was never entrusted to collect any charges on account of tickets. The defendant did not collect any amount on behalf of the company from the customers of the plaintiff. The defendant further alleged that on 8th June, 2012, the defendant made an application for his resignation from the plaintiff company but such prayer was not accepted. The defendant was compelled to hand over the cheques and some signed papers including the stamp papers without any opportunity to go through the contents thereof on the threat and pressure by the men and agent of the plaintiff company and only thereafter by letter dated 9th June, 2012 the resignation of the respondent was accepted. In other words, it is alleged that the company was not willing to accept the resignation without the respondent executing such unsigned document including the stamp paper and handing over all such cheques. In other words, it is alleged that the company was not willing to accept the resignation without the respondent executing such unsigned document including the stamp paper and handing over all such cheques. It is, however, alleged that out of the three complaints, two cases being C/26090 of 2012 and C/26091 of 2012 were dismissed for default. 4. There is no contemporaneous evidence to show that the defendant until filing of the affidavit in opposition has disputed the genuinity and authenticity of the documents executed by him nor he had alleged that such documents were signed under coercion although the defendant had the opportunity to contemporaneously raise such objection. The issuance of the postdated cheques and the contents of the bond establish that the defendant had acknowledged his liability and the said cheques were issued in discharge of his liability. The explanations offered are extremely difficult to accept. 5. Under such circumstances, there shall be a decree for a sum of Rs.19,20,922/-. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has left it to the discretion of the Court with regard to payment of interest. The aforesaid sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit until realization. G.A.No.3458 of 2016 stands disposed of. 6. Since the aforesaid order virtually disposes of the suit, nothing remains in the suit. Thus, the suit is decreed for the aforesaid sum of Rs.19,20,922/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. The suit also stands disposed of. The department is directed to draw up the decree expeditiously.