IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1001 of 2008 UNION BANK OF INDIA, THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER, J.N.M.COLLEGE, BHAGALPUR, P.S. BARARI, DIST. BHAGALPUR. Versus RAMA SHANKAR SINGH RAMAN SON OF LATE TANUK LAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF PLOT NO. LIG.12, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, BARARI, P.S. GANGA BRIDGE, BHAGALPUR. ----------- FOR THE APPELLANT : MR. BIRENDRA KR. SINHA,. SR..ADVOCATE. FOR THE RESPONDENT : None 2 6.1.2009 Respondent appellant aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2008, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7144 of 2005 , allowing the writ application has been preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letter Patent. Writ petitioner-respondent (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) was an employee of the appellant Union Bank of India and posted at the Extension Counter of Jawahar lal Nehru Medical College Branch at Bhagalpur. On 3.10.2002, there was shortage of fund in the Branch to make payment of the salary of the employees of the College. Petitioner was deputed to bring a sum of Rs. 1,50000/- from the main Branch of the Bank. Petitioner as directed collected the amount in cash and while coming back waylaid and cash was removed. In relation to the incident a criminal case was registered, which after investigation has been found to be true. Petitioner deposited the amount and later on made prayer for its refund. His prayer was turned down by the Bank by its order dated 3.3.2005. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order. The learned Single Judge on consideration of the material before him directed the bank to - 2 - take steps for refund of Rs. 1, 50000/- along with interest. Mr. Sinha, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that when the petitioner had deposited the amount the direction to refund the said amount is uncalled for. He submits that in order to avoid disciplinary preceding the petitioner had deposited the amount and later on he cannot seek refund of the amount. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Sinha. Learned Single Judge in fact had found that the amount was not deposited by the petitioner voluntarily and found material to show that he was asked to deposit the said money, so that cash balance at the end of the day could be worked out in the shortage account. In our opinion, the direction of the learned Single Judge in the facts of the present case cannot be faulted. We do not find any merit in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, ACJ) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Rahman/