Parvari Devi vs Punjab National Bank and Others

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.8.2010 (Annexure P-2) issued by respondent No. 3, whereby recovery of an amount of Rs. 50587/- was made from the pension account of the husband of the petitioner, without issuing any show cause notice or prior intimation to the petitioner. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent-bank authorities.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner does not deny her financial liability, yet it was least expected from the respondent bank-authorities to issue atleast a show cause notice or a prior intimation to the petitioner, before effecting the recovery of a huge amount of Rs. 50587/- in one go from the pension account of her husband, who is no more. He further submits that petitioner is a widow and getting family pension. He submits that the respondent-bank may be directed to recover the remaining amount of Rs. 65345/- from the pension account of the petitioner, but only by way of easy monthly instalments, which should not be more than 1/4th of the monthly pension amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for allowing the present writ petition.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-bank relies on the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and claims entitlement of the bank under clause 159 of guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. He prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, instant writ petition deserves to be allowed, for the following more than one reasons.

It is a matter of record and not in dispute that the amount of Rs. 50587/- was recovered from the pension account of the husband of the petitioner in one go and all of a sudden, without issuing any show cause notice or without any prior intimation to the petitioner. Even if the Reserve Bank of India guidelines relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent-bank are to be accepted as it is, still the respondent-bank was under legal obligation to issue atleast a show cause notice to the petitioner or ought to have granted an opportunity of personal hearing, before recovering the abovesaid amount of Rs. 50587/- from her pension account in one go and that too without any intimation. It is so said, because the respondent authorities were bound to ensure the meticulous compliance of the basic principles of natural justice. However, in the present case, a serious prejudice was caused to the petitioner while issuing the impugned intimation dated 31.8.2010 (Annexure P-2). This action of the respondent-bank cannot be sustained.

It is also an undisputed fact between the parties that husband of the petitioner died in the month of June 2010. The excess amount was being allegedly credited in his pension account during his life time right from January 2006. However, after the death of husband of the petitioner, the petitioner was intimated vide Annexure P-2 about lumpsum recovery of Rs. 50587/- from her pension account. Under these circumstances, the respondent-bank authorities were expected to proceed in a reasonable manner, as they were dealing with widow of a pensioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after withdrawing the abovesaid amount from the pension account of the petitioner, no amount was left in her pension account, which came as a sudden shock to the petitioner.

So far as the alleged bona fide mistake committed on the part of the respondent bank officials/officers is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent bank sought time on 6.10.2014 to get instructions from the respondents to apprise this court, as to whether any appropriate action was initiated against the erring officials/officers of the respondent-bank. Today, he has fairly stated in this regard that no punishment has been awarded to any of the erring officials/officers of the respondent-bank. Under these circumstances, it can be safely concluded that instead of taking appropriate disciplinary action against the erring officials/officers of the respondent-bank, petitioner was found to be soft target and the abovesaid amount was recovered in lumpsum in a most arbitrary manner, which cannot be sustained.

The abovesaid view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in B.S. Bajwa and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others, ; Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. A. Durairaj (Dead) by L.Rs., ; Londhe Prakash Bhagwan Vs. Dattatraya Eknath Mane and Others, ; Government of India and Anr Vs. George Philip, and Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu, .

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as noticed herein above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this court is of the considered view that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Consequently, the respondent-bank authorities are directed to recover the remaining outstanding amount from the petitioner in easy monthly instalments and the amount thereof shall not exceed more than 1/4th of her monthly pension amount. Further, no interest shall be charged from the petitioner on the outstanding amount of Rs. 65345/-, because the petitioner was not at fault and the respondents cannot be granted benefit of their own wrong. Since the petitioner has been forced to come to this court for none of the fault on her part, the respondent-bank authorities are directed to pay an amount of amount of Rs. 15000/- to the petitioner as compensation. However, the respondent-bank authorities shall be at liberty to proceed against the erring officials/officers, if think appropriate, so as to recover the amount of Rs. 15000/-. Respondent-bank shall also be at liberty either to adjust the amount of Rs. 15000/- towards compensation to the petitioner, while recovering the outstanding amount or the said amount may be paid to the petitioner in cash.

Resultantly, with the abovesaid observations made and directions issued, the present writ petition stands allowed, however, with no order as to costs.