VIDYA DHAR BAJPAI Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been moved by the Petitioner seeking following reliefs:

(2.) Facts of the case, in short, are that the Petitioner was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Typist in the State Bank of India/Respondents on 16/8/1978 and after completion of his service tenure he retired from service on 31/12/2014. On 19/5/2020, the Petitioner discovered that his STDR amount was frozen by the State Bank of India (henceforth 'the Bank') and hold on his savings account had been removed. On 22/5/2020, the Petitioner, vide Annexure P3, made a communication to the State Bank of India/Respondents mentioning that he had not requested freezing or holding of any of his accounts and had also not received information regarding any excess payment to him. In response, vide letter dtd. 21/5/2020, the Bank informed that the action was not for a recovery, rather the action was for holding his account. Vide letter dtd. 1/6/2020, it was informed by the Bank that an excess payment of Rs.9,45,011.00 had been made to the Petitioner and as per the direction issued by Respondent 2 this amount has to be recovered from the Petitioner. The Bank provided the Petitioner with contact number of the concerned department for clarification also. The Petitioner tried to contact the concerned, but, did not get any response. Meanwhile, without providing a due opportunity and without obtaining any consent from the Petitioner the premature FDR of the Petitioner was broken by the Respondent/Bank on 3/6/2020 and the amount was credited into his savings bank account and thereafter the amount of excess payment of Rs.9,45,011.00 was debited from the savings bank account of the Petitioner and the same was credited into the account of Respondent 2. Hence, the instant petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the action of the Respondents is arbitrary and violates the principle of natural justice. The Respondent/Bank without serving any show cause notice or obtaining any consent from the Petitioner his premature FDR was broken by the Respondent/Bank and the amount was credited into his savings bank account and the amount of excess payment of Rs.9,45,011.00 was debited from his savings account and was credited into the account of Respondent 2. It was further submitted by the Learned Counsel that the Petitioner has neither committed any fraud nor had misappropriated any money. The excess amount was given to the Petitioner by the Bank authorities due to their own mistake. The case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), (2015) 4 SCC 334, as the Petitioner herein is a retired employee of the Bank and recovery is being made by the Bank after his retirement on account of excess payment of pension which is not permissible. Reliance was also placed on Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala, AIR 2022 SC 2153 as also on a judgment dtd. 25/4/2019 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.767 of 2019 (Prabhash Chandra Sardar v. State Bank of India).