The Bengal North Western Ry. Co. vs Sukhdeo Prasad

Ross, J.—The petitioner is the Bengal and North Western Railway. The opposite party was the Assistant Station Master of Tarsarai. As the result of certain departmental enquiries into the disappearance of a consignment of paddy the opposite party was dismissed from the service of the Company and was fined Rs. 150 which was ordered to be realized from his Provident Fund. The opposite party then brought an action for recovery of this sum. He failed in the Munsif''s Court both on the merits and on the ground that under the rules of the Provident Fund in case of dismissal the Agent may cause to be withheld all or any part of the bonus provisionally allotted to the servant.

The Provident Fund consists of two parts, the sum contributed by the Railway servant and the bonus and interest contributed by the Company. A note on the form of the statement of the depositor''s account shows that the bonus although shown in the account cannot be claimed as a right by the depositor, but is under Rules 14(2) and (4) wholly at the disposal of the Company which reserves full power over it. The relevant Rule 14(4) has been referred to above. The learned Munsif referred to these rules and then went on to say that the plaintiff was under liability to the Company for payment of Rs. 150 as fine as the Company was entitled to deduct that amount from his account. It is evident therefore that the learned Munsif did not absolve the Company of the responsibility for this sum merely on the strength of these rules, but on the substantial ground that the opposite party was liable to pay fine of Rs. 150. The learned Subordinate Judge held on the merits of the case that there was no proof of any misconduct or negligence on the part of the opposite party and he therefore gave the opposite party a decree.

The contention on behalf of the petitioner Company is that the learned Subordinate Judge has not dealt with the question discussed in the latter part of the Munsif''s judgment, namely, over that part of the Provident Fund which concerns the bonus and interest is subject to their control. Now the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge is that although the Company has under the terms of the agreement power to impose a fine on the railway servant for breach of any rule or discipline, the railway servant in this case has not been proved to have broken any rule and the fine was therefore illegally imposed and its deduction from the Provident Fund was not justified.

He therefore ordered a refund. Now it seems to me that the Railway Company in deducting this sum from the Provident Fund of the plaintiff was not acting in arbitrary exercise of any power reserved to it under their Provident Fund Rules, It is not even specifically stated that the amount was realized from the bonus and not from the plaintiff''s own contribution and it cannot be assumed that that was so. As soon as it is held that the fine was wrongly imposed it seems to me to follow as a necessary consequence that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for a refund of the amount. The Company were purporting to exercise their legal powers to fine their servants under the terms of the agreement between them and their servants. They were not purporting to exercise any arbitrary powers over the bonus portion of the servant''s Provident Fund. Consequently as the Court has found that the fine was wrongly imposed, the plaintiff must get the money back. It was objected on behalf of the petitioner Company that by submitting to an agreement which empowers the Company to impose a fine the plaintiff had chosen his forum and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was ousted. In my opinion this argument is without foundation.

The plaintiff has been dismissed and has been fined a sum of money and he comes to Court and claims that he was wrongly dismissed and that the fine should not have been imposed. This is a matter of a civil nature and nothing in the terms of the agreement can take away the plaintiff''s right of action in a claim of this sort.

I would therefore dismiss the application with costs.

Hearing fee one gold mohur.