IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10383 of 2004 1. Bacha Dubey s/o late Nand Kishore Dubey, at present posted as Field Officer ( Khsetra Padadhikari), Bihar State Land Development Bank, Branch Areraj, P.S. Govindganj, Dist. East Champaran. ---Petitioner Versus 1. Bihar State Land Development Bank, Budha Marg, Patna through its Managing Director. 2. Managing Director, Bihar State Land Development Bank, Budha Marg, Patna 3. Incharge Senior Accounts Officer, Bihar State Land Development Bank, Budha Marg, Patna 4. Secretary, Bihar State Land Development Bank, Budha Marg, Patna --Respondents. ---------------------------------- 11 25.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-Bank. Petitioner while serving the respondent-Bihar State Land Development Bank ( for short ‘Bank’) as Field Officer at Areraj was departmentally proceeded against and visited with an order dated 26.08.2003 (Annexure-3) whereby, a sum of Rs. 37250/- was found recoverable from his salary in instalments at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month. Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred appeal which was considered and rejected by the Managing Director of the respondent Bank and communicated through letter bearing no. 1416 dated 09.06.2004 (Annexure-6). Those two orders have been impugned in the present writ petition. In his capacity as Field Officer, petitioner was provided with provisional receipt book containing 25 (twenty five) leaves for realization of loan amount from the loanee(s)/ customer(s). It is the case of the petitioner that he had used only 04 (four) leaves thereof whereas 21 of them were unused. While on tour he lost the aforesaid receipt 2 book. A vigorous search made by him failed retrieve of the book. The petitioner promptly by a letter dated 30.12.2002 (Annexure-1) informed the respondent Bank about the loss of the provisional receipt book requesting therein to publish a notice in the newspaper in this regard presumably to guard the bank against possible misuse of unused leaves of the receipt book. Petitioner thereafter lodged information with the officer in-charge of Areraj outpost about loss of the provisional receipt book on 31.12.2002 (Annexure-2). It is the stand of the petitioner that without issuing any notice and thereby affording him an opportunity of submitting his explanation, the authority, by the impugned order dated 26.08.2003 (Annexure-3), passed an order for recovery of a sum of Rs. 37250/- in instalments from his salary. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, he made a representation stating therein that the provisional receipt book has been recovered and the deposited with the Areraj Branch of the Bank. Information to this effect was also given to the concerned officer in-charge on 24.12.2003. The representation filed by the petitioner against the order of recovery was also rejected leading to filing of the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of recovery to the extent if exceeds actual cost incurred by the Bank in publishing notice in the newspaper is a punishment under the relevant Rule/By Laws/Regulations of the Bank duly approved by the Registrar as would appear from Rule 132 thereof appearing under Chapter XII. It is further contended, with reference to the said Rule/Regulation particularly Rule 133 thereof and for that matter even under the cardinal principles of natural justice petitioner was required to give an 3 opportunity to submit his cause before passing the impugned order as contained in Annexure-3. That having not been made the order (Annexure-3) is bad in law. Consequently, the order passed on his representation is also not sustainable in law. Additionally, it has been argued that recovery of two times of the loss sustained by the Bank in publishing the notice in the newspaper, on the face of it, appears to be irrational and unreasonable. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Bank. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank, relying on the averments made in the counter affidavit, supported the impugned action. It is contended that the Bank is a commercial organization/institution and provisional receipt book is a valuable document through which realization of loans/advances are made. Loss thereof by Field Officer is, therefore, required to be viewed seriously and while recovering the loss sustained by the Bank on account of such loss of provisional receipt book the authorities are required to inject an element of deterrence which has been done in the present case. This was also deemed necessary in order to send clear message down the lines as the Bank was faced with several such incidences. It is also contended that the order contained in Annexure-3 would be appealable before the Registrar, Cooperative as per the provision contained in Rule 153 of the Rules/Regulation of the Bank. I have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perusal the materials on record. There is no controversy that on account of lapses on the part of the petitioner, the provisional receipt book containing several 4 unused leaves was lost. The petitioner himself made a request, while informing about the loss, to publish a notice in this regard in the newspaper. The respondent thereafter took appropriate steps and got published the notice in the newspaper (Annexure-7) for which the authorities incurred cost of Rs. 17, 626/- (Annexure A to the counter affidavit). The stand of the petitioner that no notice was issued to him before passing the impugned order set out in para 9 also seems to be admitted. From the materials on record, it appears, that step for publishing notice in the newspaper was inevitable on the part of the respondent Bank in order to safeguard itself against possible misuse of unused leaves of the provisional receipt book. The petitioner himself made request to that effect as would appear from Annexure-1. To that extent, thus, the authorities were justified in realizing the expense incurred by the Bank. However, it appears that respondent, under the order impugned (Annexure-3), doubled the amount of expenses incurred by the Bank and directed recovery thereof from the petitioner in instalments. This part of the order, on the face of it, appears to be an order by way of punishment. No order imposing any punishment can be passed without affording an opportunity of letting the delinquent know the charge and obtaining his response thereon. Such order would, therefore, be contrary to the well established principles of Audi Alteram Partem. It is admitted position that no such opportunity was given to the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, this Court sets aside the order contained in Annexure-6 and directs the petitioner to submit his cause against the order (Annexure-3) within four (04) weeks whereafter the concerned 5 respondents shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law considering the cause shown by him. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. By way of foot note, it is clarified that the operation of the order (Annexure-3) till passing of fresh order by the respondent shall remain in abeyance. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)