W.P.(C) No. 3834/2008 Page 1 12. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3834/2008 Date of decision: 20th May, 2009 NEERA VIRA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. I.C. Mishra, Advocate. versus STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. S.L. Gupta & Mr. Virender Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? O R D E R % 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner-Ms. Neera Vira will file a civil suit/appropriate proceedings for recovery of Rs.1,29,374/- and damages, and he confines his arguments to prayers (a) and (b) in the writ petition. Prayers (a) and (b) in the writ petition reads as under:- “a) direct the respondent No. 1 to investigate the matter against respondent No. 2 in which circumstances the impugned cheque was cleared despite undertaking dated 19.9.2007 after credited the service charge Rs.110/- from her W.P.(C) No. 3834/2008 Page 2 account; and b) All guilty persons should be punished by respondent No. 1 accordance with law by initiating the legal proceedings;” 2. The petitioner has a saving bank account with the respondent-State Bank of India, South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi. It appears that the Tehsildar, Defence Colony had to recover some payments under the Land Revenue Act pursuant to an award passed by the Labour Court and had approached the petitioner. It is stated that on 15th September, 2007 the Tehsildar obtained cheque No. 470092 of Rs.1,29,374/- in favour of one Mr. Lakhan Singh. The cheque as per the petitioner was post dated 20th September, 2007. 3. On 18th September, 2007, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, South Extension, Part-II, New Delhi to stop payment of the said cheque No. 470092. By acknowledgment dated 19th September, 2007, the petitioner was informed that on instructions, the bank had noted stop payment instruction and had deducted Rs.110/- as service charges. The pass book placed on record shows that Rs.110/- was in fact deducted from the account of the petitioner. 4. On 13th November, 2007, the respondent bank accepted the said cheque No. 470092 of Rs.1,29,374/- and has made payment of the same to Mr. Lakhan Singh. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Bank Manager was W.P.(C) No. 3834/2008 Page 3 negligent and the respondent bank should have initiated departmental proceedings against him. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the instruction to stop payment was duly recorded by the bank, but when the cheque was received for clearing on 13th November, 2007, due to some technical fault in the computer the stop payment instruction did not get activated and the cheque by mistake was paid. It is stated that the reason for the same was that the account of the petitioner was dormant/non-operational. There was time gap between 18th September, 2007 when stop payment instruction was given and 13th November, 2007 when the cheque was encashed. 6. As already stated above, the petitioner is not pressing her claim for recovery and damages in the present writ petition and has stated that she shall file appropriate proceedings in this regard. I am not adjudicating the said prayers/reliefs. The only question is whether the respondent bank should have conducted an enquiry and initiated departmental proceedings against their officer, who was negligent. In this regard the respondent bank has given their explanation that there was computer fault and due to technical reasons, the computer did not warn about the stop payment instruction and the cheque was cleared. In view of the said explanation, I do not think it will be appropriate to issue any direction to respondent to initiate departmental enquiry against any of their officers as they have already conducted necessary investigation and have come to the W.P.(C) No. 3834/2008 Page 4 conclusion that due to technical fault the computer did not warn about the stop payment instruction and the cheque was paid/cleared. 7. It is, however, clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the prayers for recovery of the amount and for damages. The said aspect is left open. Any observation made in this order will not come in the way of the petitioner or the respondent bank if and when any action is initiated by the petitioner for recovery of the said amount or for damages. The petitioner will be also entitled to seek benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The writ petition is disposed of. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MAY 20, 2009 VKR