THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 24666 of 2009 O R D E R: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner retired from service while he was working as a Manager of the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Nagamallithota Branch, East Godavari District. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks a mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in withholding an amount of Rs.80,267/- from his retiral benefits without his consent and depositing the same in the joint account of the bank as well as himself, on 08.11.2003 under Receipt No. 008318, for a period of three years, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Supervisor in the erstwhile Kakinada Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank Limited, Kakinada. Thereafter, he worked for sometime in Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank. Subsequently, he was transferred to the District Cooperative Central Bank. When he was discharging the functions of the Manager in Nagamaallithota Branch, certain demand drafts were presented by M/s Priyadarshini Enterprises, Kakinada, Sitarama Electricals, Kakinada and M/s Brothers Shop, Kakinada, on 11.02.1999, 12.02.1999 and 22.02.1999 respectively. In usual course, the said demand drafts were honoured and payments were also made. As a part of banking transactions, the Head Office has been issuing demand drafts to the public, through its branches. For that purpose, the Head Office is getting printed the demand draft books and supplying them to the branches and in the said process, in 1997, the bank has ordered for printing of 2000 demand draft books containing 50 leaves each at Bhanu Press, Kakinada and the same were received by the bank on 21.11.1997. While so, the demand draft book bearing No. 3527 containing demand drafts No. 176301 to 176350 was found missing from the Stationery Department of the Head Office of the bank. When an enquiry into the same was conducted, it was revealed that some of the demand drafts from the said book were issued, as if they were issued from its Branch at Tuni by forging the signatures of the Branch Manager and the Cashier. Out of the said demand drafts, about five drafts were presented in the bank at its Branch at Nagamallithota, covering an amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- on different dates in the month of February 2009 and they were honoured by the said bank. With reference to the missing demand drafts, and their mis- utilization, an enquiry was conducted by the Assistant General Manager of the bank. It appears the said Enquiry Officer has submitted reports stating that there was a loss to the bank to a tune of Rs.1,40,000/- on account of missing of demand draft book, as such, the petitioner and two other Officers were held responsible and a notice was issued to them to show cause as to why an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- could not be recovered from them. They filed explanations to the show cause notice, denying their liability stating that in the ordinary course, they have honoured the draft and that no amount can be recovered from them. Subsequently, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 28.03.2000 calling him to remit an amount of Rs.46,667/- with interest towards his share out of the total loss caused to the bank and he was instructed to deposit the said amount and in default, the said amount would be recovered from his salary. Subsequently, he retired from service. Therefore, the same was recovered from his retiral benefits and was kept in a joint fixed deposit of the bank. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is not liable to pay any amount as there is no order to recover such amount by any competent authority and that therefore, the respondent cannot withhold the amount. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed. It has been stated therein that though the petitioner was required to remit an amount of Rs.46,667/- vide notice dated 28.03.2000, he did not do so, therefore, the said amount was recovered from his retiral benefits. It is further stated that some demand drafts were prepared as if they were issued by Tuni Branch of the bank by forging the signatures of the Branch Manager and the Cashier and some of such demand drafts were presented in Nagamallithota Branch, where the petitioner was working as a Manager. It is also stated that a criminal case was registered against the persons, who have committed theft of the demand drafts. It is further stated that with reference to the enquiry conducted by the Assistant General Manager, who stated that the petitioner and others were negligent in their duties and thereby, caused loss to a tune of Rs.1,40,000/-, the bank has issued a memo dated 28.03.2000, and as the petitioner did not remit Rs. 46,667/-, the same was withheld and kept in a fixed deposit. A reference is also made to the order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 19112 of 2006, wherein this Court has ordered release of the deposited amount only when the petitioner therein filed a memo in the Court agreeing to forego a sum of Rs.10,000/-. From a perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that though an allegation of negligence is attributed against the petitioner, no enquiry is conducted by initiating disciplinary proceedings and no charges were framed against him. Even the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent did not place any material to show that any enquiry has been initiated against the petitioner. No power was conferred on the bank to recover the amount, under the Discipline, Control and Appeal Regulations. If any loss is caused to the bank, the respondent, being a Society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, has to order recovery of the amount by initiating enquiry under Sections 51 and 60 of the Act, but it appears no enquiry is initiated as yet. In the absence of any order to recover the amount from the petitioner, under the provisions of the 1964 Act, and in the absence of any power in the Discipline, Control and Appeal Regulations to recover the amount, withholding any amount from the retiral benefits of the petitioner is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. Inasmuch as it is stated that the maturity value of the said amount is Rs.1,37,582/- on 08.11.2009, the petitioner is entitled to the same including the interest, if any accrued thereon thereafter also. For the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed, by directing the respondents to release the withheld amount of Rs.46,667/- with its maturity value i.e. Rs.1,37,582/- as on 08.11.2009 with subsequent interest accrued on the said amount, to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ---------------------------- (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) 21st April 2010 ksld