IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 26355 of 2007(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA LOK AYUKTHA, TRIVANDRUM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. K.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, PARAMESWARA BHAVAN, NADOORKOLLA, MANCHAVILAKOM, KOLLAYIL, NEYYATTINKARA, TRIVANDRUM R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SRI.G.BIJU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.26355/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT. P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.2472 OF 2006 BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DT.23-9-2006. EXT. P2: COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE BANK DATED APRIL, 2007. EXT. P3: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 23-5-2005. EXT. P4: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 23-6-2005. EXT. P5: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 16-8-2005. EXT. P6: COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 29-8-2005. EXT. P7: COPY OF THE ORDER IN COMPLAINT NO.2472 OF 2006 DATED 13-7- 2007. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT. R2(A): COPY OF NOTICE DATED 24.9.2007 SERVED BY PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. R2(B): COPY OF EXPLANATION TO EXHIBIT R2(A) SUBMITTED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.26355 of 2007-K = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.The first respondent was an employee of the petitioner. He retired from service on 31-8-2005. Since his retiral benefits were not released, he moved the Kerala Lok Ayukta. Ext.P7 order was issued by that authority directing the petitioner to release the amounts covered by that order. It was held that the pendency of vigilance investigation may not be a ground to hold back the retiral benefits. 2.It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that with the passage of time, the petitioner has fixed the liability on the second respondent for losses allegedly sustained by the WP(C)26355/2007 -: 2 :- writ petitioner since some of the outstandings sanctioned by the bank through the second respondent were found to be not recoverable. The petitioner bank states that the second respondent had not acted with due care and caution and that his negligence had led to certain overdraft facilities and other transactions being entered into by the bank without appropriate security and without ascertaining the repayment capacity of the debtors. 3.If the petitioner has suffered any loss on account of commissions or omissions of the second respondent, the entitlement to recover any amount from the second respondent would be governed by the general law relating to contract and agency or on the basis of any specific provision either in the terms of the contract of service or any law governing the service, including any condition of service as part of the rules of the employer, the writ petitioner. No such provision is pointed out. Therefore, the only recourse available to the writ WP(C)26355/2007 -: 3 :- petitioner would be to effect recovery through a competent authority by initiating proceedings by way of arbitration or before the competent courts in accordance with law. 4.For the foregoing reasons, I find no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Ext.P7 order of the Lok Ayukta. The writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right, if any, of the petitioner to take recourse to remedial provisions for recovery of any amount that may be found due from the second respondent, in accordance with law. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/