IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1286 of 2009 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 7619/2005) 1. Punjab National Bank Through The Chariman-Cum-Managing Director, Hed Office, 7, Bhikhaji Cama Place, Afrila Revenue, New Delhi-110066 2. The Zonal Manager Punjab National Bank, Chanakya Place, R-Block, Patna ----------------------Appellants Versus 1. Shyam Nandan Prasad Sinha S/O Late Chhote Narayan R/O Narayan Bhawan, Par Nawadah, P.S-Nawadah, Distt-Nawadah, At Present Resident Of Mahbir Janki Bhawan, Moh- Saristabad, P.S- Gardanibagh, Distt- Patna ----------------------Respondent ---------------------------------- 4. 12.12.2011 The present appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned single Judge passed on 26.8.2009 in C.W.J.C. no.7619 of 2005 wherein the respondent-appellant had challenged the action of the Bank. It has been contended before the learned single Judge that as no order of recovery has been passed, therefore, the appellants-Bank cannot forfeit any amount lying to its credit. As the provident fund amount was not paid in full and certain amount was withheld, the said action of the Bank was the only question in the writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the Bank, it was contended that the Bank is entitled to create a lien on provident fund account to the extent of Bank’s contribution. As the anticipated loss has been quantified, which was more than Bank’s contribution, the entire Bank’s contribution has been withheld. Learned single Judge while hearing the writ petition 2 has observed that no charge was framed causing loss of any particular amount to the Bank nor such allegations were made nor any amount was quantified. Learned single Judge has further held that being no charge was framed, action of the Bank to withhold the provident fund amount is uncalled for. Hence, there cannot be withholding of any amount only on the basis of anticipatory loss and with such direction the writ petition was allowed. Being aggrieved by the said direction the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants-Bank. It has been contended that as there was loss caused to he Bank therefore amount of the provident fund was withheld. But however it has been observed that there was no charge against such causing of loss to the Bank. Learned counsel for the Bank has contended that in the counter affidavit they have stated the reason for not paying provident fund amount in full. However, in this regard it has to be observed that as per law laid down by the Apex Court the reasons mentioned in the counter affidavit will not be treated as reasonable cause. In absence of any charge being framed against the respondents, this Court is of the opinion that the said Bank has no authority to withhold any amount of the provident fund and the respondent is entitled to be paid full amount. Under the above circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal stands 3 dismissed. Sudip ( T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Vikash Jain, J. )