Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/368/1997 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 368 of 1997
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5431 of 1994
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
DILIPBHAI
KANTILAL SHAH - Appellant
Versus
UNITED
BANKOF INDIA & 1 - Respondents
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
MURLI DEVNANI FOR MR. YOGESH S LAKHANI
for Appellant
MR BHARAT
JANI for Respondents : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT
Date
: 12/07/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)
Heard
learned advocate for the parties.
The
appellant by way of this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of
the Letters Patent has approached this Court challenging the
judgment and order dated 3.3.1997 passed by learned Single Judge in
Special Civil Application No. 5431 of 1994 to the extent the Special
Civil Application is dismissed.
The
appellant-petitioner joined the services of respondent Bank on
6.1.1964, as a Cashier-cum-Clerk. After 8 years, the petitioner was
promoted to the post of an Officer. The petitioner was issued two
chargesheets dated 15.11.1982 and 28.5.1983. After holding
Departmental Inquiry, the petitioner’s services came to be
terminated. The petitioner was suspended on 26.4.1982. The appeal
preferred against the order of termination was also rejected,
therefore, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 3769
of 1987, which is also dismissed and against same, Letters Patent
Appeal is also filed.
It
is the case of the petitioner that respondent Bank was suppose to
pay the amount of Provident Fund and the respondent Bank wanted to
illegally deduct the amount of Rs.12,000/- towards misappropriation,
out of the amount paid to the petitioner. It is the submission of
the petitioner through out that there was no loss to the Bank and
the respondent bank was not in a position to explain as to how the
amount of Rs.12,000/- was to be deducted. Accordingly, the
petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 5431 of 1994 and the
learned Single Judge by impugned order partly allowed the Special
Civil Application and ordered the respondent Bank to pay an interest
at the rate of 12% p.a., on the amount of Rs.19482-66 from 1.1.1987
till the date when the said amount has been paid to him in pursuance
of the order dated 26.7.1994 of this Court.
We
have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
impugned order. This appeal is followed by earlier appeal being
Letters Patent Appeal No. 369 of 1997 decided by this Court today,
wherein the appeal was dismissed after departmental appeal, and
findings were upheld by the appellate authority, learned Single
Judge and this Court in Letters Patent Appeal. The appellant in this
appeal has asked for release of Rs.12,000/- which have been withheld
by the bank on the ground that this amount was withheld due to the
loss incurred to the bank. When this Court has upheld the finding
that because of act of appellant, the bank has caused loss and
therefore, there is no force in the appeal and is dismissed
accordingly. It is also observed that if at all any recovery is
required to be made, then the appellant has to approach the Civil
Court for same.
(BHAGWATI
PRASAD, J.)
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT,
J.)
pallav
Top