AJOY KUMAR VERMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Court at the very outset records its displeasure against the approach of the learned Counselfor the Reserve Bank of India and the State Bank of India in this matter which was evident on the previous occasion also. During the course of submissions on 1.5.2000, they went to the extent that it would not be possible for the two Banks to serve notices on its functionaries because they are impleaded by name. This Court desists from making any further observations in the hope that they shall realise the gravity of the situation and make submissions in the present matter in a more responsible manner. This writ petition relates to injecting counterfeit in the Indian currency system which is amongst the vitals of any nation, and an attempt to destabilise the country's economy is discernible. Has anyone to be reminded that no individual has any entity without his notion. The Counsel for the Banks seem to have positioned themselves in this matter like an adversarial litigation, as if they are fighting an inter se seniority matter. This much for their approach.

(2.) I wish to recapitulate the facts represented by the petitioner before this Court. He is a member of the Indian Police Service. He had withdrawn a sum of Rs. 55,000/ - from the Boring Road Branch of the State Bank of India, Patna, on 24.3.1999, and went over to the Patliputra Branch of the State Bank of India, Patna, to deposit the same in his Public Provident Fund Account. The Cashier of the Patliputra Branch refused to accept the same for the reason that it included counterfeit. The petitioner requested him to give him an appropriate certificate and/or take appropriate action in accordance with law which he completely declined to do Similar requests were made to the other functionaries of the Branch including the Branch Manager who also declined to take steps in accordance with law. The petitioner returned to the Boring Road Branch and requested the Cashier to give him the certificate and/or take action in accordance with law which he completely declined to do. Similar requests to other functionaries in that Branch including the Branch Manager also were negatived. The functionaries of the Boring Road Branch gave very significant factual informations to the petitioner, namely, the Boring Road Branch had given a loan of Rs. 80,00,000/ - to one P.K. Mittal, who was setting up a unit at Raxaul, which is a small township in the State of Bihar bordering Nepal and is separated from Patna by about 300 kms. The petitioner was further informed that the bundles of notes amounting to Rs. 55,000/ - which had been handed over to the petitioner earlier in the day had been deposited by the said P.K. Mittal towards repayment of the loan amount. The petitioner thereafter moved the office of the Reserve Bank of India who all declined to take appropriate steps in accordance with law in the matter. His request to the Chief General Manager for an audience was declined. The petitioner thereafter approached the local Head Office of the State Bank of India, Patna, where also he was given just the same treatment as at other places. The then Chief General Manager also refused to grant him an audience. Feeling completely helpless in the matter, the petitioner addressed his communication to the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, and he has not received any reply so far. The petitioner thereafter moved the appropriate authorities of the Bihar Government who attended to the issue, and accordingly Budha Colony P.S. Case No. 104/99 has been registered and is being investigated under the control and supervision of the Inspector/General of Police (Economic Offences Wing), CID. The investigation is in progress, and P.K. Mittal is in custody.

(3.) THE petitioner has placed on record the details which may amount to a criminal conspiracy as well as gross dereliction of essential duties and functions on the part of the functionaries of the State Bank of India, right from the Chief General Manager to the Cashier of the two Branches in question as well as the functionaries of the Reserve Bank of India up to the level of the Chief General Manager. His repeated efforts to get audience from the Chief General Manager and other functionaries next to him to apprise them of the situation and pleading appropriate action in accordance with law, both with respect to the counterfeit in question as well as abdication of duties and functions attributable to the functionaries of the Banks, failed, and no action whatsoever was taken. He had thereafter sent letter(s) to the Chairman of the State Bank of India and he has not so far received any reply. In that view of the matter, the Chairman of the State Bank of India is hereby directed to submit an affidavit before this Court personally sworn by him within one month as to the steps taken by him after he had received information on this issue and the steps that he now proposes against the erring officials of his Bank.