C.W.P. No.7961 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.7961 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: MAY 25, 2009 Om Prakash .....PETITIONER Versus The Mahendergarh Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Mahendergarh and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.Rajneesh Chadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. The petitioner, who was working as Daftri in the Mahendergarh Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Mahendergarh and retired from service on 31.12.2008, has filed the instant petition for issuing direction to respondent No.1 not to recover half of the amount of Rs.2,44,000/- from the gratuity of the petitioner in view of the notice dated 8.11.2007 (Annexure P1). In the present case, when the petitioner was working in the respondent-bank in the year 2007, a cheque dated 12.4.2007 amounting to Rs.2,44,000/- issued by one Pardeep Singh in favour of Mahendra & Mahendra Financial Services Limited, Delhi was presented by H.D.F.C. Bank, Delhi for clearance. The same was returned with the objection that funds were not sufficient. After some time, the said cheque was again C.W.P. No.7961 of 2009 -2- submitted for clearance. On that date also the funds were not sufficient in the Savings Bank Account of Pardeep Singh. However the said cheque was illegally encashed without any objection and the payment of Rs.2,44,000/- was released to the H.D.F.C. Bank, Delhi for payment to Mahendra & Mahendra Financial Services Limited, Delhi. In this regard, a show cause notice dated 8.11.2007 was issued to the petitioner, who had cleared the said cheque as well as the Manager of the Branch for depositing that amount with interest. In the petition, it is not mentioned that any reply was given to the said notice or not or any final order was passed or not. Now after retirement, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for issuing direction to the respondents not to recover any amount from his gratuity in view of the said show cause notice. In the petition as well as during the course of arguments, it has been stated by the petitioner that due to over-rush in the bank, the aforesaid cheque was cleared in spite of the fact that the Account holder was not having sufficient funds in his Savings Bank Account. Even the Account holder had died almost three years prior to the presentation of the aforesaid cheque, and thereafter the said account was not operated. In spite of that fact the cheque was cleared and payment was made. In these facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere in this writ petition in exercise of the equitable writ jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, this petitio is dismissed. May 25, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE