JUDGMENT : (Tirumala Devi Eada, J.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 26.12.2005, passed in O.S.No.78 of 2001 by the learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short “the trial Court”). 2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is plaintiff before the trial Court and the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity. 3. The brief facts of the case before the trial Court are that the plaintiff bank appointed the defendant as a Probationary Officer and that the defendant joined the service on 22.12.1983. He worked as Assistant Manager (Accounts) of Chandrayanagutta Branch, Hyderabad from 01.09.1997 to 12.10.1998 and thereafter, he was posted as System Administrator in the plaintiff branch from 13.10.1998 till 17.08.2000 i.e. the date of his suspension. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 16.08.2000 they could notice that the defendant while working as Assistant Manager (Accounts) at Chandrayanagutta branch, forged the signature of Sri APJ Abdul Kalam, a learned Scientist and Scientific adviser to Prime Minister of India and the Branch Manager of the plaintiff bank alerted and verified the personal accounts of the defendant vide his current account Nos.01090094617 opened on 12.10.1998 and 01090007979 opened on 13.10.1998. The bank manager found that there were no abnormal transactions till April, 1999 but from May, 1999 onwards, there were very high value credit clearances noted through the said accounts. Further, they could detect that the said clearances related to employees provident fund. It is their case that the various institutions remit employees funds, corporate tax, income tax, ESI contribution, etc., by means of local cheques drawn on their respective banks along with related challans in quadruplicate. That these cheques will be presented in the outward clearing system of a computerized branch by giving the credit to intermediate accounts on systems suspense accounts and these amounts cannot be credited directly until the draft is written. The details of the clearing credits diverted by the defendant from the system suspense account to his above stated current accounts is to a tune of Rs.52,79,452.05 paise and that the defendant has withdrawn the amounts from the current account to a tune of Rs.26,50,000/- in cash and the remaining amount through transfer. The details of the clearing credits diverted by the defendant from the system suspense account to his above stated current accounts is to a tune of Rs.52,79,452.05 paise and that the defendant has withdrawn the amounts from the current account to a tune of Rs.26,50,000/- in cash and the remaining amount through transfer. When the fraud was reported to the Assistant General Manager of their division and when the defendant was questioned by the authorities on 17.08.2000, the defendant admitted the fraud and assured to repay the amount by 11.30 AM on 19.08.2000. He failed to do so and thus, the Branch Manager lodged a complaint with Station House Officer, Abids Police Station vide complaint No.191 of 2000 and during the course of investigation they have seized various articles from the possession of the defendant. It is their case that the defendant has repaid the housing loan with the funds misappropriated and took back the title deeds of his flat situated at Ameerpet and the plaintiff bank has to pay the misappropriated funds to beneficiaries. Thus, the plaintiff filed the present suit. 4. The defendant filed a written statement denying the material averments but has admitted that he joined service in the plaintiff bank and worked in different capacities in different branches. But for the said fact he denied all the averments in the plaint and further he pleaded that he was working only as a System Administrator and that he has no knowledge about the remittances made by various institutions towards employees’ provident funds etc., and thus, he never had an access to the remittances to go for manipulation and that the allegations are false. He further denied the high value transactions remitted to his account and that he was not working as a front line office staff and as such, the signing of two copies or the question of manipulation is unfounded. He further contended that he was wrongly suspected by the plaintiff bank and that he is not liable to pay any amounts to the plaintiff bank. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues: “1) Whether the defendant falsified the accounts by playing fraud? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount from the defendant? 3) To what relief?” 6. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues: “1) Whether the defendant falsified the accounts by playing fraud? 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount from the defendant? 3) To what relief?” 6. At the time of trial, the plaintiff got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A122. The defendant got examined DWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.B1 to B18 and Exs.C1 and C2. 7. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is filed by the defendant. 8. Heard the submission of Sri T.S.K.Trilok Raj, learned counsel for the appellant. There was no representation on behalf of the respondent. 9. The learned appellant counsel has submitted that the judgment of the trial Court is not based on concrete evidence and that the trial Court erred in concluding that he is liable to pay the suit amount. He further contended that the suit was initiated against the defendant without waiting for the result of the criminal proceedings and that they cannot proceed against him both on civil and criminal side simultaneously. He further argued that the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the defendant has worked only as a system administrator and that he never had any access towards the remittances made by various institutions towards employees provident fund, corporate tax, income tax etc., and that the duties of the defendant does not empower him to handle the said remittances. He further contended that out of the alleged current accounts, first one was opened by the appellant for his salary which was being credited by the plaintiff bank, when he joined the bank at the place of his first posting and that the said account was getting transferred from branch to branch wherever he got transferred and that the second account was opened as shop gap arrangement for crediting the salary of the appellant since the first account was not immediately transferred to the present branch when this appellant has joined the said branch. He further contended that the second account bearing No.01090007979 is not a joint account of himself and his wife as alleged by the plaintiff bank. He further contended that the second account bearing No.01090007979 is not a joint account of himself and his wife as alleged by the plaintiff bank. He further argued that the fraud committed by other staff members are being fixed upon the defendant and thus, the defendant is not liable to pay the suit amount. He therefore, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 10. Based on the above submissions, this Court frames the following points for consideration: “1. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the suit amount from the defendant? 2. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is sustainable in law and under the facts? 3. To what relief?” 11. POINT NO.1 a) The admitted fact is that the defendant used to work in the plaintiff bank having been appointed on 22.12.1983. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant initially joined as a Probationary Officer, thereafter, he worked as Assistant Manager (Accounts) at Chandrayanagutta branch from 01.09.1997 to 12.10.1998 and during the said period he forged the signature of Sri APJ Abdul Kalam, a learned Scientist and Scientific adviser to the Prime Minister of India and that he has misappropriated the funds belonging to the beneficiaries of their bank. b) In support of their contention, they got marked Exs.A1 to A122. They mainly relied upon the statements of account of the defendant under Exs.A1 and A2. A perusal of the said accounts reveals that both the accounts are the current accounts opened by the defendant. The current accounts are usually maintained for the business transaction purposes. Generally, the individuals or employees would operate savings bank account. It is also noticed by the bank authorities that there were abnormal transactions from May, 1999 onwards. A perusal of Exs.A1 and A2 reveals the said fact of heavy transactions from May, 1999 onwards. c) Under Ex.A3 they could portray the statement of the amount that is involved in the present case, which is alleged to be misappropriated by the defendant. Immediately, on knowing the said fraud, they have called upon the defendant and held talks with him. He sought time till 19.08.2000 for making the said payment. When he failed to do so, the plaintiff got filed a complaint which is evident from Exs.A8 and A9. Immediately, on knowing the said fraud, they have called upon the defendant and held talks with him. He sought time till 19.08.2000 for making the said payment. When he failed to do so, the plaintiff got filed a complaint which is evident from Exs.A8 and A9. Ex.A8 is the police complaint lodged by the bank and Ex.A9 is the First Information Report registered on the said complaint. They have also submitted the seizure panchanama and seizure report filed by the police during the course of their investigation. Though the criminal proceedings are not relevant in civil cases, this particular aspect with regard to the seizure of properties from the defendant is a relevant fact. d) The evidence of PW2 discloses that the defendant has been acting as ‘System operator’ as well as ‘clearing and passing officer’ due to shortage of manpower and that the defendant was holding two portfolios with two passwords and that the defendant was the sole person entrusted with the responsibility of ‘clearing’ in the said branch. e) The evidence of PW2 clearly discloses that whenever any organization which has to remit funds for credit of Employees provident fund and ESI, it has to remit the amount either by cash or Demand Draft in any one of the notified branches of the bank and that their branch is one of such notified branches for accepting both ESI and EPF amongst various other services and it is elicited through him in a detailed manner as to how the remitters have remitted the amounts and how the defendant has diverted the same into his account. f) Exs.A23 to A26 are the duplicate challans in respect of payment of EPF amounts by M/s.Sriram Bioseed Genetic India Limited, M/s.Hindustan Insecticides Limited and M/s.Bioseed Research India Private Limited and All saints high school, Hyderabad respectively. Exs.A27 to A46 are the credit slips/payin slips pertaining to the account of the defendant bearing No.01090094617 to which the defendant had diverted the amounts from the EPF/ESI/Income tax etc., accounts of various Government organizations. PW2 further deposed that the defendant had diverted the amounts paid by the organizations, to the joint account held by himself and his wife bearing No.10190007979. Exs.A47 to A72 are the pay-in slips/credit slips showing the deposits into the said account. Exs.A73 and A74 are the pay-in slips of term deposits, crediting Rs.50,000/- each to his wife and his son. PW2 further deposed that the defendant had diverted the amounts paid by the organizations, to the joint account held by himself and his wife bearing No.10190007979. Exs.A47 to A72 are the pay-in slips/credit slips showing the deposits into the said account. Exs.A73 and A74 are the pay-in slips of term deposits, crediting Rs.50,000/- each to his wife and his son. g) PW3 is the accountant of plaintiff branch. His evidence reveals that Exs.A75 to A108 are the cheques pertaining to the two accounts held by the defendant through which the defendant had encashed/withdrawn the amount at regular intervals. h) It is further elicited through PW2 that under Ex.A117/a banker cheque, dated 29.12.2000 for an amount of Rs.43,64,261/- drawn in favour of EPF organization through which the plaintiff bank has paid the amount to the organization and the defendant had fraudulently diverted their funds to his account. So also Ex.A118 is another banker cheque dated 29.12.2000 for an amount of Rs.1,55,694.05 paise in favour of ESIC. Ex.A119 is another banker cheque dated 29.12.2000 for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in favour of Corporation Tax Account, Ex.A120 for an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- in favour of Income Tax Account, Ex.A121 is dated 29.12.2000 for an amount of Rs.651/- in favour of Sangameswara Gramina Bank and Ex.A122 is dated 29.12.2000 for an amount of Rs.1,08,845/- in favour of ‘the deposit at call account of LSMP Bekan’. Several pay-in slips and duplicate challans filed by the customers, are also produced by the plaintiff before the trial Court, under Exs.A16 to A107. i) If the entries in the statements of account under Exs.A1 and A2 are compared with the pay-in slips, the entries tally with the deposits under the pay-in slips. Ex.A16 is the report submitted by the Branch Manager/PW4. He is associated with computerization of various branches and he could explain as to how the manipulation was effected by the defendant. It is elicited through him that to avoid suspicion, the defendant used to pass and deliver two copies of the challans to the remitters and used to destroy other two copies of which one was meant for the Branch and the other meant for the EPF organization through SBI main branch. Since the remitters have been getting back their copies of challans, there were no complaints by them as such the fraud did not come to light for a long time. Since the remitters have been getting back their copies of challans, there were no complaints by them as such the fraud did not come to light for a long time. It is elicited through him that the salary of the defendant was Rs.14,975.25 paise, Ex.B7 discloses the same and his deductions are to an extent of Rs.4394.87 paise, thus, he was getting a net salary of Rs.12,580.38 paise but the credits and debits in his account disclose transactions worth lakhs of rupees. Further, he could discharge the housing loan of Rs.2,00,000/- at a time and that he was possessing several other assets such as 1) Two Maruthi cars, 2) 36 silver coins, 3) gold ring, Gold necklace and several gold items and 4) FDRs mentioned in Ex.A12 seizure report. Thus, the plaintiff could place it on record through all these documents that there were huge transactions in the account of defendant within a short span of time, given the salary of Rs.14,975/- per month drawn by him. j) Furthermore, the evidence of PW4/software expert of plaintiff bank, which is crucial to this case, reveals the modus operandi of how the defendant could manipulate the said transactions and divert funds into his accounts. Nothing material could be elicited during the cross examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses to discredit their evidence. k) On the other hand, the defendant could not place any clinching evidence to disprove the case of the plaintiff. He has just filed the salary statement under Ex.B7 which is not in dispute and the letters addressed by him to the bank and the Officers Service Rules under Ex.B12. Though there are Service Rules, it is elicited through the evidence of PW2 that due to shortage of manpower, the defendant acted as system operator as well as ‘clearing and passing officer’. Therefore, the said document is of no help to the defendant. He has filed Ex.B8/certificate of repayment of loan to show that he has closed the loan on 02.08.2000 and he has also filed system room logging record under Ex.B15. It is his contention that he had no access to the system room. But it is already discussed supra that PW4 is the person who is incharge of the software in the said bank and it is clearly elicited through him as to how the defendant could manipulate the accounts. It is his contention that he had no access to the system room. But it is already discussed supra that PW4 is the person who is incharge of the software in the said bank and it is clearly elicited through him as to how the defendant could manipulate the accounts. Once his evidence is established to be trustworthy and the defendant could not elicit anything material from his cross examination, this logging record does not have any weight and therefore, it is held that the defendant has misappropriated the amounts by diverting the amounts remitted by several organizations into his own accounts, during the period from 01.09.1997 to 12.10.1998. Therefore, it is held that the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant. Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 12. POINT NO.2: In view of the reasoned findings arrived at point No.1, it is held that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are based on sound reasoning and the same are held to be sustainable in law and under the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. POINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the judgment and decree, dated 26.12.2005, passed in O.S.No.78 of 2001 by the learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.