JAGAT SINGH Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner Sh. Jagat Singh seeking a writ or order from this Court against the respondent No. 1/Syndicate Bank/erstwhile employer for directing respondent no.1 to release an amount of ' Out of this amount, Rs. 1,07,710/- is the amount of

(2.) ,07,710/- . provident fund of the petitioner and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is the gratuity due of the petitioner. Petitioner also seeks payment of interest. 2. It is not disputed that the petitioner stands dismissed from service on certain charges, however, even after taking those enquiry proceedings as final, the aforesaid amount is said to be due to the petitioner.

(3.) I asked the counsel for the respondent No. 1-Bank to show me what are the rules of the respondent No. 1-Bank which entitles the respondent No. 1-Bank either to withhold or appropriate the amounts which are otherwise due to an ex-employee. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-Bank says that as of today no rules are filed on the record of this Court. In my opinion, even if no rules are filed on the record, yet, whether for withholding or for appropriation of the amounts, the respondent No. 1-Bank which is a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India cannot do so without conducting necessary enquiries which hold the petitioner guilty of the alleged losses caused to the bank. Thereafter, it was perfectly permissible for the respondent No. 1-Bank to appropriate or at least withhold the amounts which are now claimed by the petitioner, unless a law mandates payment to the petitioner. I may mention that simple withholding of an amount is not illegal because even if there are no rules of an organization ( and a relevant rule is Rule 9 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 entitling withholding of pension and gratuity) even under the general law, an organization can always withhold or appropriate/adjust amounts lying with it because payment in spite of a claim of withholding an appropriation would amount to payment to be made to an ex-employee which would result in payment of a disputed amount which is claimed by the organization on account of losses caused by the employee. In fact there is always a legal right to appropriate amounts already in the hands of a person and which belongs to another person, if the person holding/appropriating the same does it towards his entitlement vide Walchandnagar Industries Ltd. Vs. Cement Corporation of India, 2012 (2) ARBLR 19 (Delhi). The only exception is if law or rules of the employer direct/require the payment and thus disentitles appropriation/adjustment. As already stated above, appropriation is actually adjustment in legal terms and is part of the genre of equitable set off.