BHIM SEN DATTA Vs. HIMACHAL GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Regular Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 20 of Himachal Pradesh Court Act, 1976 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.8.2007, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra in Civil Appeal No. 148/P/05/04, affirming the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2003, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 58/1999, whereby suit of the plaintiff was decreed for recovery of Rs.1,73,245/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.

(2.) Briefly stated facts as emerged from the record are that plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.1,73,245/- alongwith interest @ Rs. 18% per annum quarterly rests w.e.f. 17.7.1998 till the full and final payment of the aforesaid amount against the appellant (hereinafter referred to the 'Defendant') in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. Plaintiff specifically stated in the plaint that plaintiff Bank is having a functional branch at Baijnath under the name and style of 'Himachal Gramin Bank, Baijnath' (hereinafter referred to as 'HGB'). Plaintiff further averred that defendant was posted as Cashier in its Branch Office at Baijnath and had been serving under the control of various Branch Managers, who remained posted there. Plaintiff further averred that on 10.7.1992, Shri R.P. Gupta, was the Branch Manager of the Plaintiff-Bank at Branch Office, Baijnath, whereas defendant was cashier at that relevant time. It is further averred in the plaint that at the end of the business transaction on 9.7.1992, the then Manager, R.P. Gupta, demanded the entire cash from defendant for physical verification. The Cashier presented the cash, which was counted in the presence of other employees and was tallied with the daily cash balance book prepared by the defendantCashier but to the utter surprise a sum of Rs.1,55,000/- was found short and that too in the denomination of Rs.50/- currency notes. Plaintiff further averred that defendant stated that he has kept the amount in the lower drawer of the currency safe and informed the Manager that he had lost the key of the drawer and on this pretext he kept on making false search. Defendant further told the Manager that he might have left the key at his residence inadvertently. Accordingly, cash produced was kept in safe which was locked by the Manager and the defendant. On the next day when defendant failed to produce the keys matter was reported to the Head Office by the then Manager, R.P. Gupta, pursuant to which General Manager of the Bank came from Mandi at 4:00 p.m. and the duplicate keys which were kept in safe custody of the Punjab National Bank, Branch Office, Paprola was taken out and with the aforesaid key lower drawer was opened but no money was found in it. Accordingly matter was reported to the police and thereafter on 10.7.1992 defendant was put under suspension and regular inquiry was initiated on 7.9.1993. Defendant filed civil writ petition before High Court of Himachal Pradesh and inquiry was got stayed till 30.11.1994 when the writ was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court. The regular inquiry conducted by Bank was completed on 26.9.1997 and inquiry officer submitted his report on 16.4.1998 holding all the charges proved against the defendant. Personal hearing was also granted to the defendant by the Chairman of the Bank on 20.6.1998. As per plaintiff Bank, defendant orally admitted his guilt and offered to compensate the Bank by paying the sum of Rs.1,55,000/- by way of deduction from his salary, however, his request was turned down and he was removed from the service. Thereafter, plaintiff Bank asked defendant several time to pay the embezzled amount but no heed was paid by the defendant and petitioner bank was compelled to get legal notice issued upon him on 17.9.1998. Since, defendant failed to deposit the amount despite there being legal notice, plaintiff filed suit in the competent Court of law for recovery of Rs.1,73,245/- alongwith interest @18% per annum quarterly rests w.e.f. 17.7.1998 till the full and final payment of the aforesaid amount.

(3.) Defendant by way of written statement refuted the contentions/averments contained in the plaint in toto by stating that since plaintiff failed to supply the documents to defend him in inquiry, he filed writ petition, whereby, conditional stay order was passed to the plaintiff to supply the documents. Defendant further submitted that no charge was proved against him and the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with law and natural justice. He further submitted that personal hearing was given though there was no admission on behalf of the defendant and accordingly he prayed for dismissal of the suit.