IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7619 of 2005 SHYAM NANDAN PRASAD SINHA s/o late Chhote Narayan , resident of Narayan Bhawan, Par Naweadah, P.S. Nawadah, District- Naweadah at present resident of Mhabir Janki Bhawan, Mohalla- Saristabad, P.S. Gardanibagh, District- Patna. Versus 1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK through the Chairman –cum- Managing Director, Head Office -7, BhikhajiCama Palace, Afrila Revenue, New Delhi- 110066. 2. The Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, Chanakya Palace, R-Block,Patna. ----------- 5 26.8.2009 This case has been assigned to this Bench by the order of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice. Heard the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at this stage itself. Petitioner was an employee of Punjab National Bank. For certain charges, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and on charges being proved, he was dismissed from service. In the departmental proceeding , there was no charge of causing in loss of any particular amount to the Bank nor were such allegations made nor any amount quantified . Even while passing the punishment order, apart from dismissal, no order as to recovery of any amount from the petitioner was passed. After petitioner’s dismissal, when petitioner was to be paid his outstanding due, which included the amount standing in his provident fund account, which was not ordered to be forfeited in any manner, petitioner was paid less than half of the amount standing to his credit. He has come to this Court for full payment of his provident fund dues along with interest. In the counter affidavit, the stand of the Bank is that the Bank anticipated that the petitioner has caused loss to it. In para 28, Bank has calculated anticipated loss. With reference to the Provident 2 Fund Rules, Bank substantiates its stand by saying that for any loss caused by an employee ,Bank is entitled to create a lien on provident fund account to the extent of Bank’s contribution. The anticipated loss having been quantified, which was more than Bank’s contribution, the entire Bank contribution has been with-held. Petitioner challenges the correctness of this stand on the ground that there being no proceeding in respect of loss caused by the petitioner nor there being any notice to the petitioner, the calculation on self- assumption of any anticipated loss and its enforcement against the provident fund deposit of the petitioner is not permissible. Having considered the arguments, in my view, the writ petition must succeed. It is well settled that before any punitive action is taken, the present cannot be denied that it is not punitive, a person has to be heard .On self- assumption calculation cannot be made to the detriment of a person. Definitely no order was passed in this regard in the departmental proceeding. No other order was passed for recovery of the amount. No order was passed after noticing to the petitioner. In such a situation an ex parte assessment and a single handed recovery is wholly without jurisdiction. Bank is directed to pay to the petitioner the entire amount that was standing to his credit on the date of his dismissal along with accrued interest within one month from today. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands allowed. SINGH (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)