IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 19112 of 2006 Between: Juttu Venkat Reddy, S/o.late Venkata Surya Jagannadha Rao, R/o.L.I.G.643, I Phase, K.P.H.B. Colony, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The President, The Dist. Co-operative Central Bank, Nagamalli Thota, 2 The General Manager, The Dist. Co-operative Central Bank, Nagamalli Thota, .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the second respondent i.e., The General Manager, The District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Nagamalli Thota Branch, Kakinada herein to release the Dhana Lakshmi deposit by vacating the lien up on the deposit amount Dt. 10.12.2002 vide E.No.47733 an amount of Rs.46,667/- along with the maturity amount of Rs.78,356/- which was retained and lined by the 2nd respondent after deducting before maturity interest and direct the Respondents 1 & 2 to pay Rs.75,000/- as damages which the petitioner is suffered with mental agony and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.P.INDRA PRAKASH Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.SRINIVAS REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted by a former clerk of the District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Nagampalli Thota Branch, Kakinada, East Godavari District, questioning the action of the respondents in not releasing the terminal benefits amounting to Rs.46,667/- together with the amount of interest earned thereon. 2. The writ petitioner was working as a clerk at the relevant point of time when a serious fraud has taken place at one of it’s branches, situated at Tuni. A book, containing number of demand drafts, was clandestinely removed from the branch at Tuni. Those demand drafts have been manipulated by the perpetrators resulting in five such instruments being honoured and paid for, in all, a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- has been paid to the various payees. The writ petitioner has been proceeded against on the premise that he has not followed the instructions issued for stopping payment of the fraudulent demand drafts, carefully. On that account, a sum of Rs.46,667/- has been withheld and not to cause any loss, the same has been confined to an interest bearing fixed deposit. 3. It is not in dispute that the second respondent bank has issued telegrams and fax messages to all the District Co-operative Central Banks in the state on 25th March, 1999 requesting them not to honour any demand drafts bearing Serial Nos. 176301 to 176350. However, it is worthy to notice that the five demand drafts, forming part of the afore mentioned series, have been cleared for payment between 11th February, 1999 to 24th February, 1999. Hence, the five demand drafts in question, which have been cleared for payment, have all been cleared in good faith inasmuch as the “stop payment instructions” have been passed on by the bank only on 25th March, 1999, after it has detected the clandestine removal of the demand drafts from it’s Tuni Branch. Therefore, the writ petitioner could not have been faulted for making the payments in favour of the payees, any time, prior to receiving the “stop payment instructions”. It is not doubted that the demand drafts have been presented by different payees and the writ petitioner did not play any role in their clandestine removal at Tuni Branch, for, he was not working at the said branch. In these set of circumstances, the entire action taken by the respondent bank in withholding the amount of Rs.46,667/-, trying to hold the writ petitioner accountable for the same, is not justifiable. 4. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, upon receiving instructions, has filed a memo into the court today, signed by the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner has agreed to receive an amount of Rs.46,667/- together with interest earned thereon, leaving out a sum of Rs.10,000/-, so that the second respondent bank would be able to adjust the same as a token of reimbursement of the loss sustained by it. The gesture of the writ petitioner in leaving out a sum of Rs.10,000/- is appreciated. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, the second respondent bank is directed to refund the amount of Rs.46,667/-, which has been withheld by it from out of the terminal benefits, payable to him, together with interest earned thereon inasmuch as the said amount has been confined to an interest bearing fixed deposit. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. It is open to the writ petitioner to surrender the fixed deposit receipt, and upon such surrender, the second respondent bank shall release the payment only retaining a sum of Rs.10,000/- from out of the interest earned thereon. The amount shall be released in favour of the writ petitioner, within fifteen (15) days, from the date on which the F.D.R. is surrendered by the petitioner. _________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J. JULY 14, 2009. Dsh/Kvr.