ANANT PRAKASH LADER Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is to the recovery procedure adopted against the petitioner for certain purchase made during the service period. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner while in service of the Bank in terms of Rule 25 (3) of SBI Officers Service Rules, 1992, the Rules, which has a Statutory trappings was provided with a facility to purchase certain furniture/fixtures which are provided to an employee. Consequent to such benefit extended the petitioner had purchased goods worth Rs. 1,06,000/- in the month of May, 2015. The petitioner retired on October, 2018. According to the terms of circular, facility which are given to an employee, if the person retires within 5 years from the date of reimbursement of furniture/fixtures the book value would be recovered from his terminal dues and if 5 years have been passed then the reimbursement of furniture/fixtures is not required to be made. Since the petitioner purchased the furniture/fixtures in the year 2015 and retired on 2018 the Bank served a notice Annexure P-2 to recover the amount of Rs. 51,493/- which was the book value of the furniture/fixtures. The same is under challenge.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by issuance of notice Annexure P-2, a restrain was created for an amount of Rs. 51,493/- on the account of petitioner but the retiral dues could not be attached, which is against the law. It is further submitted that the Bank at the time of retirement had never informed to the petitioner that such outstanding dues are to be paid and after the retirement the notice of hold of account has been issued against the retiral dues to the extent of Rs. 51,493/-. It is contended that the Bank was very much within their rights to file a Civil suit for recovery of Rs. 51,493/- and the procedure adopted by the Bank cannot be sustained and is illegal.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the Bank would submit that according to the existing circular a facility was extended to a employee while he was in service and furniture/fixtures to the extent of Rs. 1,06,000/- was purchased. It is stated that at the time of retirement of the petitioner after three years the book value of goods were Rs. 51,493/- i.e. of the furniture/fixtures. Consequently, as per the existing circular of the Bank since the petitioner retired within five years of the purchase, the book value of furniture/Fixtures should have been paid back. The reference is further made to Annexure R-3 and the counsel would submit that there is a undertaking given by the petitioner, that if he retires within 5 years he would pay the book value of the furniture/fixtures at the time of the retirement. Therefore, the said petition against the said under taking is not tenable. It is further contended that if the person retires and the value is not paid then it would be difficult for the bank to recover the same.