LANGPI DEHANGI RURAL BANK Vs. H CHANKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For alleged facts of omission and commission on the part of the respondent writ petitioner, the appellant bank has allegedly sustained pecunialy loss of Rs. 4,96,080.90. A departmental enquiry was held against the writ petitioner and ultimately by the order dated July 5, 1996 of the disciplinary authority the writ petitioner was dismissed from service. The provident fund of the writ petitioner was transferred to his savings bank account which the writ petitioner had in the same bank, where he was working. The authorities in the bank imposed a ban on the right of the writ petitioner to withdraw money from his personal savings bank account, which account included the money received from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The imposition of ban or restriction on the writ petitioner to operate his savings bank account led him to file WP.(C) No. (C.R.) 420/1997 in this Court. That writ petition has been allowed by the judgment and order dated June 15, 2001 primarily on the ground that the writ petitioner had the account in the bank as a customer and no ban or restriction could be imposed by the authorities to operate that account. This has led the bank to file the present writ appeal.

(2.) Regulation 30 of the Langpi Dehangi Rural Bank Staff Service Regulations is in the following terms:

(3.) We have perused the order, of punishment dated July 5, 1996. That order is simple order of dismissal from service and there is no order of imposing punishment of recovery of any pecuniary loss. That being so, the question of the appellant-bank imposing any restriction on the operation of the account of the writ petitioner-respondent did not arise (assuming for the sake of argument that the bank can put such a restriction). Since nothing is to be recovered from the writ petitioner-respondent bv the appellant-bank as no punishment of recovery of any pecuniary loss has been imposed, e are of the view that restriction could not have been imposed on the writ petitioner respondent from operating his account. Consequently, we uphold the judgment of the learned single Judge, though on different grounds, and dismiss the Writ Appeal.