BANK OF BARODA Vs. BIBEK VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. S. C. Shyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Khan, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. None appears for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

(2.) THE present writ petition has been preferred under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 22. 11. 2001 passed by learned Banking Ombudsman. At the very outset it has been enquired from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the present petition is being addressed under Article 226 or Article 227. On this aspect the learned counsel for the ptitioner has submitted that the present writ petition in view of the prayer for invoking writ jurisdiction of mandamus and certiorari is to be dealt with under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) FOR and on behalf of the petitioner/bank of Baroda while chellenging the impugned order dated 22. 11. 2001, the facts have been narrated by stating that : A Saving Bank Account No. 13099 was opened in the name of private respondent No. 1 namely Mr. Bibek Verma on 22. 10. 1996. The petitioner had received a notice on 15. 6. 1998 on behalf of the respondent No. 1 stating that an amount of Rs. 72,750/- has fraudulently been withdrawn from the said account through three cheques dated 30. 9. 1996 alleged to have been issued by him. Petitioner repudiated the claim of the respondent No. 1 vide his letter dated 10. 10. 98 (emphasis supplied ). However, about two years of such repudiation of the claim by the petitioner/bank of Baroda, the respondnet No. 1 submitted a complaint dated 18. 9. 2000 before learned Ombudsman at Guwahati, from where notice dated 1. 11. 2000 was issued directing the peitioner/bank of Baroda to submit para-wise comments which, however, was duly submitted on 13. 11. 2000, and learned Ombudsman vide its letter dated 29. 5. 2001 has informed the petitioner "the matter has since been treated as closed at this end. " To the utter surprise, the petitioner received a Notice dated 29. 10. 2001 from learned Ombudsman directing the petitioner to furnish specific informations, with indication that learned Ombudsman has decided to hold a hearing on 22. 11. 2001. The informations as desired by learned Ombudsman were submitted in addition to showing appearance before learned Ombudsman on 22. 11. 2001 for participating in hearing of the case. Learned Ombudsman after hearing the Senior Branch Manager, for and on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and also the Manager (Service) Bank of Baroda and Regional Manager, Guwahati, has decided the case by a Judgment and Order dated 22. 11. 2001 directing the petitioner to make good of Rs. 72,750/- alongwith interest from the date of deposit of the cheques at Bank of Baroda, Shillong till the date of payment of the amount at the rate prevailing against the Bank's savings deposit at that time.