IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 347 of 2004 (S/B) Govind Ram Arya. .……… Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others. .………. Respondents. Mr. K.S. Bora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 4. Mr. K.C. Tewari, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) The petitioner is stated to have extended loans during the course of his employment as Branch Manager, without following the instructions of the bank, as also without taking appropriate precautions. On account of the aforesaid dereliction at the hands of the petitioner, the aforesaid loans could not be recovered. The issue under reference was referred to arbitration. As per the award of the arbitrator dated 17.09.1990, respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were required to make strenuous efforts to recover the aforesaid loans. In case, the said loans could not be recovered, it was open to the aforesaid respondents to recover them from the petitioner. 2. The averments made in paragraph 20 of the joint counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 & 3, reveal that a sum of Rs. 2,46,747.21 has already been recovered from the petitioner, by way of deductions from his salary. Besides the aforesaid amount, a further sum of Rs. 2,49,748/- is still recoverable. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that in terms of the award of the arbitrator dated 17.09.1990, no recovery could be made from the petitioner till respondent Nos. 2 & 3 had made strenuous efforts to recover the loans from those to whom the same had been extended by the petitioner. In this behalf, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are seeking to recover the aforesaid remaining amount of Rs. 2,49,748/- from the petitioner, without carrying out the obligation placed on their shoulders by the arbitrator, in his award dated 17.09.1990. 2 3. In order to counter the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3 has invited this Court’s attention to the following factual position, depicted in paragraph 20 of the joint counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 & 3: “…..It is pertinent to mention here that the answering respondent did his level best to recover the amount from the defaulters and for this the answering respondent sought the help of the petitioner even after his retirement as during the tenure of the petitioner the loans were disbursed without fulfilling the formalities and for which the petitioner was totally responsible…” Based thereon, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the aforestated respondents, that besides making strenuous efforts on their own, respondent Nos. 2 & 3 had associated the petitioner as well, so as to enable them to make recoveries from the concerned parties. Despite the association of the petitioner, in seeking recoveries before and after his retirement, they have failed to recover any further amount. It is, therefore, submitted that at this juncture, in terms of the award passed by the arbitrator on 17.09.1990, the remaining amount of Rs. 2,49,748/- is now recoverable from the petitioner. 4. Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied, that in terms of the award dated 17.09.1990, respondent Nos. 2 & 3 could recover the balance amount from the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner had made such an undertaking unilaterally to respondent Nos. 2 & 3, wherein he had acknowledged, that he would reimburse the balance amount, which could not be recovered from the lonees, in whose favour, he had issued loans. 5. In view of the above, we are satisfied, that it is now open to respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to recover a sum of Rs. 2,49,748/- from the petitioner. Insofar as the aforesaid amount is concerned, a sum of Rs. 2,46,747.21/- has already been retained from the retiral benefits payable to the petitioner. The said amount shall, therefore, be deemed to have been recovered by respondent Nos. 2 & 3 from the petitioner. Though originally it was retained as a matter of surety, now the same shall be deemed to be recovered as an adjustment out of the total amount of Rs. 2,49,748/-. The balance recovery, as per the pleadings contained in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 & 3, is now only Rs. 3,000/-. It will be open to respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to effect the aforesaid recovery in accordance with law. 3 6. The instant writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 07.04.2010 07.04.2010 G