JUDGMENT : H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J. It is a defendant's appeal. The present respondent as a plaintiff in O.S.No.3226/2009 filed in the Court of XL Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-41) (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "Trial Court") had sought for the relief of recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,54,000/- with interest there upon from the defendant. 2. The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the Trial Court was that, he was an employee of the defendant - Corporation and was serving as an Assistant Manager (Accounts). He opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme (hereinafter for brevity referred to as "VRS") and was relieved from his services with effect from 25-05-2006. When he was working in the Accounts Department, by oversight, he had given a credit entry in respect of two cash receipts of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each to the account of M/s.Ksheeradhara, Vijayanagara, Bengaluru, instead of M/s. Kshema Distributors. The said amount was received by the defendant from M/s.Kshema Distributors. The said mistake was purely bona fide. It was the case of the plaintiff that the said amount of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was also taken into the receipt of the defendant Corporation, as such, there was no misuse or misappropriation of any money by the plaintiff. The passing of the said entries into a wrong account was purely by oversight. However, when he took VRS and was relieved from the services of the defendant Corporation, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been withheld from out of his retirement benefits. The plaintiff has contended that the defendant could not keep the money belonging to him for no valid reasons. Therefore, he got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 30-08-2007 demanding refund of the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, the defendant neither complied the demand nor responded to the notice which constrained the plaintiff to institute a suit against the defendant, claiming interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 25-05-2006 till the date of institution of the suit, which according to the plaintiff in all comes to a sum of Rs.1,54,000/-. Thus, the plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,54,000/- from the defendant along with interest there upon. 3. Thus, the plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,54,000/- from the defendant along with interest there upon. 3. In response to the summons served upon it, the defendant entered its appearance and filed its Written Statement, wherein it has admitted as 'true' that the plaintiff was an employee under it and was working as an Assistant Manager (Accounts) and that the plaintiff was relieved of his duties with effect from 25-05-2006 as he had opted for VRS. The defendant contended that as an Accounts Manager, it was the responsibility of the plaintiff to maintain accounts properly and to credit cash in respect of the accounts maintained by each Company. However, as admitted by the plaintiff himself, he had given wrong credit to one M/s.Ksheeradhara, Vijanagara, instead of M/s. Kshema Distributors. The said mistake committed by the plaintiff had made the defendant Corporation to incur a loss of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The defendant has further stated that it has filed a suit against M/s. Ksheeradhara in O.S.No.3650/2008 in the Court of the City Civil Judge at Bangalore (CCH-12) for recovery of the said sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The defendant apart from admitting that it had withheld a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the retirement benefits of the plaintiff, has justified it stating that, since the defendant Corporation had incurred a loss of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- at the act of the plaintiff, it has withheld the said amount which was payable to the plaintiff. However, it further stated that once the said M/s. Ksheeradhara agrees for repayment of the said amount, it would release the said amount later in favour of the plaintiff. 4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:- "[1] Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant wantonly has withheld Rs.1,00,000/- without any reasons which is due to him on account of his retirement as alleged in the plaint? [2] Whether the defendant proves that it is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff as contended in the Written Statement? [3] Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim together with interest as claimed? [4] What decree or order?" In support of his contention, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exhibits P-1 to P-17(d). [3] Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim together with interest as claimed? [4] What decree or order?" In support of his contention, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents from Exhibits P-1 to P-17(d). On behalf of the defendant - Corporation, it's Joint Manager, Quality Control, by name Sri. C. Abdul Rasheed was examined as DW-1 and documents from Exs.D-1 to D-5 were got marked. 5. After hearing both side, the Trial Court answering issue No.1 in the 'affirmative', issue No.2 in the 'negative' and issue No.3 'partly in the affirmative' proceeded to partly decree the suit of the plaintiff and directed the defendant - Corporation to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the plaintiff. However, it denied the claim of the plaintiff for interest on the alleged sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is against the said judgment and decree, the defendant in the Court below has preferred this appeal. 6. The Lower Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for appellant and perused the material placed before this Court including the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment. The respondent's counsel has remained absent and as such, the arguments from the respondent's side is taken as 'nil'. 8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to with the ranks they were holding before the Trial Court respectively. 9. In the light of the above, the following points arise for my consideration in this appeal:- [i] Whether the defendant has been justified in withholding the retirement benefit of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was payable to the plaintiff ? [ii] Whether the judgment and decree under appeal deserves any interference at the hands of this Court? The plaintiff as PW-1 in his Examination-in-chief in the form of Affidavit has reiterated the contentions taken up by him in his plaint. He himself has stated that there was wrong credit made by him in respect of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the account of M/s. Ksheeradhara instead of giving a credit to the account of M/s. Kshema Distributors. However, he has called the said act as a bona fide mistake, purely by oversight, but not otherwise. He has specifically stated that there was no mis-appropriation or misuse of the said fund by him. 10. 1,00,000/- to the account of M/s. Ksheeradhara instead of giving a credit to the account of M/s. Kshema Distributors. However, he has called the said act as a bona fide mistake, purely by oversight, but not otherwise. He has specifically stated that there was no mis-appropriation or misuse of the said fund by him. 10. In his support, he has produced inter alia, a letter dated 30-08-2007 written by him to the defendant Corporation and got it marked at Ex.P-6, wherein he has stated that it was purely by oversight and mistake, he had given two wrong credits of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each to the account of M/s. Ksheeradhara, Vijayanagara, Bangalore, instead of M/s. Kshema Distributors. However, he has requested for release of the withheld amounts to him. In his cross-examination, he has adhered to his original version. 11. Dw-1 in his Examination-in-chief in the form of Affidavit has reiterated the contentions taken up by the defendant in its Written Statement. He has stated that the wrong credit of two entries of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each by the plaintiff in the account of the customer of the defendant Corporation, has led the Corporation to suffer loss of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, as such, the Corporation has withheld a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the retirement benefits of the plaintiff. In that regard, inter alia, DW-1 has got produced and marked Sundry Debtors Ledger Book maintained by the defendant Corporation in the normal course of its business and got it marked at Ex.D-1. In the said Ledger Book, the relevant entries were marked as Exs.D-1(a) and D-1(b) which show the credit of two entries in favour of M/s. Ksheeradhara, each for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, made on 25-08-2003 and 01-12-2003, showing that a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been credited to the Account of said M/s. Ksheeradhara. 12. Interestingly, in the cross-examination, DW-1 has stated that the entire amount of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- wrongly credited at Exs.D-1(a) and D-1(b) is still with the defendant Corporation only and nobody has withdrawn the said amount. 13. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff was working as an Accounts Manager (Accounts) in the defendant Corporation and under VRS, he was relieved of his duties from the services of the defendant Corporation with effect from 25-05-2006. 13. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff was working as an Accounts Manager (Accounts) in the defendant Corporation and under VRS, he was relieved of his duties from the services of the defendant Corporation with effect from 25-05-2006. The plaintiff himself both in his plaint as well in his evidence as PW-1 has stated that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- spread into two payments of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each ought to have been given credit to the account of M/s. Kshema Distributors by him, however, by oversight and sheer mistake, he had given credit of those two amounts to the account of M/s. Ksheeradhara. However, he has stated that those two wrong entries were made by oversight and for bona fide reasons. Thus, the very plaint itself goes to show that, the plaintiff has given two wrong credit entries in favour of M/s. Ksheeradhara for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- instead of giving credit to the account of M/s. Kshema Distributors, who was said to have made payment to the defendant. The evidence of DW-1 corroborated by the ledger entries at Exs.D- 1(a) and D-1(b) also goes to show that on 25-08-2003 and 01-12-2003, the plaintiff had given credit of two entries of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each to the account of M/s. Ksheeradhara instead of M/s. Kshema Distributors. Thus, the passing of two wrong entries in favour of their client, M/s. Ksheeradhara to whom the credit ought not to have been given has been admitted by none else than the plaintiff himself. 14. The contention of the plaintiff that he was relieved from his services under the defendant Corporation on 25-05-2006 and that out of his retirement benefits, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been withheld by the defendant Corporation is also an admitted fact. The defendant in its Written Statement itself has specifically stated that since it has incurred a loss of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- due to the wrong entries passed by the plaintiff, the said amount has been withheld by it. However, the defendant Corporation has volunteered to say further that it has instituted a suit against M/s. Ksheeradhara in O.S.No.3650/2008 and once the said amount is paid by M/s. Ksheeradhara to it, the Corporation would release the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff. However, the defendant Corporation has volunteered to say further that it has instituted a suit against M/s. Ksheeradhara in O.S.No.3650/2008 and once the said amount is paid by M/s. Ksheeradhara to it, the Corporation would release the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff. It is the said amount which is withheld by the defendant Corporation, the plaintiff has been asking for its release in his favour by instituting a suit. As such, the only point that now remains to be considered is: Whether the said withholding of the amount by the defendant Corporation is justifiable? Learned counsel for the defendant/appellant in his argument apart from reiterating the contention of the defendant in the Trial Court in its Written Statement has further submitted that the defendant Corporation has been empowered and authorised to withhold the service benefits as per Rule 8.7-A of the Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Products Limited Service Rules and produced a photocopy of the relevant portion of the said Service Rules. The said Rule 8.7-A of the Service Rules of the defendant Corporation reads as below: "8.7-A Provision regarding retired employees: (a) If the disciplinary authority or any authority empowered in this behalf is of the opinion that it is necessary in the interest of the Corporation either to continue with a disciplinary enquiry or to initiate fresh enquiry against an employee of the Corporation who retires after superannuating or by voluntary retirement or termination/dismissal/compulsory retirement, it shall do so following the procedure set out in section 8.6. Provided no fresh enquiry shall be initiated after three years from the date of retirement. (b) If the disciplinary authority having regard to its findings is of the opinion that imposing of the penalty of recovery from retirement benefits the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by the negligence or breach of orders the competent authorities of the Corporation is just and reasonable he or it shall pass appropriate order after (i) the retired/terminated/dismissed/compulsory retired employees is informed in writing of the proposal to recovery of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation from the retirement benefits and give an opportunity to make any representation, he may wish to make. (ii) Such representation if any, is taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority." Learned counsel for the defendant/appellant submits that the above referred Rule of the Service Rules of the defendant Corporation authorises the defendant Corporation to withhold the service benefit. 15. A careful reading of the said Rule 8.7-A of the Service Rules of the defendant Corporation goes to show that even though the authority empowered has got a power to order for recovery of whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation from the retirement benefits, but the very same Rule also mandates that before exercising the said power, the Corporation is required to give an opportunity to the employee for putting forth his contention. The said Rule mainly empowers such recovery in any disciplinary proceedings and after giving an opportunity to the employee to participate in the disciplinary enquiry and put forth his case. As such, without hearing and giving an opportunity to the employee, even Rule 8.7-A of the Service Rules relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant also cannot be invoked in the case like the one on hand. Rule 8.7-A of Service Rules referred to above empowers only an 'authority' to proceed in recovering the amount from the retirement benefits of its employees. There is no material to show that in the instant case, the officer who had ordered for withholding the said amount payable to the plaintiff had been authorised under the Rules to pass such an order withholding a portion of the retirement benefits payable to the plaintiff. Thirdly, as per Rule 8.7-A(b) recovery of the amount from the retirement benefits of the employee would be in those cases where the Corporation establishes any pecuniary loss caused to it, more particularly, by the negligence or breach of orders of the competent authorities of the Corporation. In the instant case, neither there is any pleading nor any proof to the effect that there was any negligence or breach of the orders of the competent authority by the defendant Corporation. Interestingly, the defendant has no where pleaded or placed any material before the Court to show that any disciplinary proceeding or enquiry was held before it proceeded to pass the order for withholding the retirement benefits to a tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable to the plaintiff. Interestingly, the defendant has no where pleaded or placed any material before the Court to show that any disciplinary proceeding or enquiry was held before it proceeded to pass the order for withholding the retirement benefits to a tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable to the plaintiff. Lastly, Rule 8.7-A(b)(i) further mandates that the said recovery of the whole or part of the pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation from the retirement benefits of a employee would be only in cases where it has established that the Corporation has suffered pecuniary loss, in case where there exists no pecuniary loss to the Corporation, then, it cannot recover the said amount from the retirement benefits of its employees. 16. In the instant case, though the defendant in its Written Statement as well in evidence as DW-1 has stated that Corporation incurred a pecuniary loss of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the act of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff has denied the same. No evidence has been placed by the defendant Corporation to establish that it sustained any pecuniary loss. On the contrary, DW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted a suggestion as 'true' that the wrong entries made by the plaintiff mentioned at Exs.D-1(a) and D-1(b) of a sum of Rs.50,000/- each is with their Corporation. The very same witness in the very cross-examination has further stated that the entire amount of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- wrongly deposited at Exs.D-1(a) and D-1(b) is still with their Corporation only and nobody has withdrawn that amount. When it is a clear statement made by none else than the defendant Corporation itself that the alleged wrong credit made by the plaintiff is still standing with the defendant Corporation and nobody has withdrawn the said amount, it cannot be construed that the defendant Corporation has suffered any pecuniary loss warranting it to recover the said amount from the retirement benefits of the plaintiff. As such, the act of the defendant Corporation withholding the retirement benefits of the plaintiff without any proper reasons and without holding any enquiry in that regard and also in the absence of showing that the Corporation had sustained any pecuniary loss would result into a punishment imposed upon the plaintiff for his unproved alleged guilt. Therefore, the Trial Court though has decreed the suit by attributing some other reasons, still, its conclusion of decreeing the suit cannot be found fault with. Therefore, the Trial Court though has decreed the suit by attributing some other reasons, still, its conclusion of decreeing the suit cannot be found fault with. As such, I am of the view that the impugned judgment and decree under appeal by the Trial Court does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER [i] The appeal is dismissed; [ii] The judgment and decree dated 08-09-2011 passed in O.S.No.3226/2009 by the learned XL Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, (CCH-41), is hereby confirmed; Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along with the Lower Court records to the concerned Trial Court, without delay.