NUTAN VIDARBHA SHIKSHAN MANDAL Vs. RAMAKANTH MAHADEORAO KHOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by defendant. Parties hereinafter shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this revision are as under : plaintiff is an employee of defendant no. 1 society. He was working at the relevant time as a clerk. It was the duty of the said employee to take care of the grants received from the Government, to draw the amount for running the school and the society. Defendant no. 2 is the Head Master of the said school. The school receives two grants namely salary grant and non salary grant. For the said two grants two separate accounts are maintained in the bank. Those accounts have been opened in amravati District Central Co-operative Bank. It is contended by the plaintiff that many a times no intimation about the disbursement of the non salary grant is given to the society and the amount is directly credited in the account. On 05-10-96 the plaintiff went to the Co-operative bank to make an enquiry with regard to the balance in account. He was told that there was a balance of amount of Rs. 1,13,319. 50 Ps. The amount was in excess of what the plaintiff expected and, therefore, he inquired with the clerk whether the non salary grant is credited to the said account and he was told that the grant has been received from the Government. The plaintiff, therefore, brought this fact to the notice of the Head Master Shri. P. N. Borkar. Upon directions of Shri. Borkar the plaintiff prepared certain cheques in the name of the creditors of the school. Subsequently it was found that the said grant of Rs. 1,00,000/- was received for the year 1996-97 and he again made a request to the Bank Manager to verify the accounts and he was told that sum of rs. 1,00,000/- has been wrongly credited by the bank in the account of defendant No. 2 towards non salary grant. This was again brought to the notice of defendant No. 2. It is contended that this had happened only due to the negligence on the part of the bank employees and they refused to correct the account. It is also the contention that the bank, therefore, sought to recover from the defendant No. 1 society a sum of Rs. 28,767/- towards the interest on the amount used by the defendant society.

(3.) The plaintiff thereafter received a notice from the defendant No. l seeking his explanation as to why an amount of Rs. 28,767/- be not recovered from him and the Head master Shri. Borkar. The explanation of plaintiff was rejected and the society decided to deduct the amount from the salary of the plaintiff, hence the plaintiff has instituted this suit for declaration that plaintiff is not liable to pay sum of Rs. 14,383/- and for injunction prohibiting the defendant from deducting the same from the salary.