PREM SINGH Vs. SARABJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by one Prem Singh (herein after referred to as the 'Petitioner') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (herein after referred to as the 'State Commission') in favour of Sarabjit Singh, Manager, Gurdaspur Central Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others (herein after referred to as the 'Respondents').

(2.) The facts according to the Petitioner, who was the original complainant before the District Forum, are that he was working as an Assistant Manager with the Respondent/Bank from where he retired on31.3.2006. A cheque in respect of his Provident Fund was issued by the Commissioner, Provident Fund, Amritsar for Rs. 4,54,305 dated 4.5.2006 drawn on State Bank of India, Amritsar. This cheque was sent by the Respondent/bank for clearance to the Central Co-operative Bank, Amritsar on 13.5.2006 and after clearance of the above cheque, a D.D. of the said amount was prepared on 19.5.2006 by the Central Co-operative Bank, Amritsar which was collected by the Respondent/bank on 22.5.2006. Petitioner, thereafter, approached the Respondent/Bank to credit this amount to his account several times which the Respondent failed to do. Aggrieved by this and on grounds of deficiency in service, Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum requesting that the Respondent be directed to pay him Rs.4,54,305 as his dues and Rs. 1,00,000 on account of mental agony and harassment.

(3.) The Respondent denied the above contentions and stated that the Petitioner had been suspended and disciplinary action was initiated against him on charges of defalcation, irregularities in recommending/sanctioning, etc., loans to various persons including his sons amounting to over Rs. 4 lakh. After receipt of the show-cause notice Petitioner had filed an affidavit that if the persons for whom he had stood surety in granting loans did not make the required payments, then the amounts due from them could at the time of his retirement, be adjusted against his retiral and other dues. It was under these circumstances that the Provident Fund amount was not paid to him.