{"id":171152,"date":"2011-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011"},"modified":"2015-08-04T14:11:57","modified_gmt":"2015-08-04T08:41:57","slug":"harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Harun Topno vs Allahabad Bank Thr Chief G.M. on 22 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Harun Topno vs Allahabad Bank Thr Chief G.M. on 22 September, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>                     Writ Petition (S) No. 4701 of 2008\n                                     ------\n<\/pre>\n<p>     In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\n<\/p>\n<p>                                     &#8212;&#8212;\n<\/p>\n<p>     Harun Topno                                        &#8230;&#8230;         Petitioner<br \/>\n                                   Versus<\/p>\n<p>      1. Allahabad Bank through the Chief General<br \/>\n         Manager, Allahabad Bank, Calcutta\n<\/p>\n<p>      2. The General Manager, Allahabad Bank, Ranchi\n<\/p>\n<p>      3. Deputy General Manager, Allahabad Bank, Ranchi\n<\/p>\n<p>      4. Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Ranchi\n<\/p>\n<p>      5. Regional Manager, Allahabad Bank         &#8230;&#8230;             Respondents\n<\/p>\n<p>                                 &#8212;&#8212;\n<\/p>\n<p>     For the petitioner:             Mr. Dilip Kr. Prasad, Advocate<br \/>\n     For the respondents:            Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate\n<\/p>\n<p>                                    &#8212;&#8212;\n<\/p>\n<p>                          PRESENT<br \/>\n                 THE HON&#8217;BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL<\/p>\n<p>Order Dated 22.09.2011<br \/>\nPer D.N.Patel, J.:    The present writ petition has been preferred mainly against<br \/>\n           the orders, passed by the disciplinary authority, which are at Annexure 2<br \/>\n           of the memo of petition, whereby, major punishment has been imposed<br \/>\n           upon the petitioner to the effect that twelve increments with future effect<br \/>\n           have been stopped with a cumulative effect, in terms of Clause No.<br \/>\n           19.6(d)   Bipartite   Settlement,   1966,   as        amended   up   to    date.<br \/>\n           Consequently, all the salaries, perquisites etc. of the period of<br \/>\n           suspension, except the subsistence allowance, paid to the petitioner,<br \/>\n           have been forfeited. This order has been passed by the Regional<br \/>\n           Manager &amp; disciplinary Authority on 27th May, 1994. Against this order,<br \/>\n           departmental appeal was preferred before the Deputy General Manager<br \/>\n           of the respondent Bank and the appeal, preferred by the petitioner, has<br \/>\n           been dismissed vide order dated 3rd January, 1995, which is at Annexure<br \/>\n           B to the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents. Against these two<br \/>\n           orders, the present writ petition has been preferred.\n<\/p>\n<p>     2.    One interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 1406 of 2009 has been<br \/>\n           allowed by this Court vide order dated 11.5.2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>     3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is<br \/>\n           basically not a peon of Allahabad Bank rather he is an Armed Guard of<br \/>\n           Allahabad Bank of Jogeshwar Colliery Branch. It has been alleged<br \/>\n           against the petitioner that on 13.8.1991 one letter was given to the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                       2.<\/span><br \/>\n     petitioner from Jogeshwar Colliery Branch of Allahabad Bank to deliver<br \/>\n     the same at Ranchi Branch. It is alleged against the petitioner that the<br \/>\n     said letter was never delivered to the Branch at Ranchi, which has<br \/>\n     resulted into loss of Rs.60,000\/-, as the same was pertaining to forged<br \/>\n     demand draft. It has also been alleged in the memo of charge against<br \/>\n     the petitioner that the petitioner knew the contents of the letter.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   So far as the second charge is concerned, it is alleged that the petitioner<br \/>\n     was given a letter on 13th August, 1991 at 2.30 p.m. to deliver the same<br \/>\n     at Ranchi Branch, but, he had shown his attendance at Jogeshwar<br \/>\n     Colliery Branch from 10.15 a.m. to 5.45 p.m. and he has not charged any<br \/>\n     T.E. Bill and and in the 3rd charge, it has been stated that there was a<br \/>\n     malafide intention on the part of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   The aforesaid charges were denied by the petitioner. The inquiry<br \/>\n     proceeding was initiated on 10th July, 1993 and completed on 26th<br \/>\n     November, and, thereafter, the inquiry officer submitted its report on 6th<br \/>\n     January, 1994 and the charges levelled against the petitioner are found<br \/>\n     to be proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority has imposed the<br \/>\n     aforesaid penalties.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that never it was<br \/>\n     the duty of the petitioner to deliver such type of post from one Branch to<br \/>\n     another Branch, because he was an Armed Guard of Allahabad Bank of<br \/>\n     its Jogeshwar Colliery Branch. Moreover, in a criminal proceeding, the<br \/>\n     petitioner has been acquitted vide order dated 14th March, 2007, at the<br \/>\n     appellate stage by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi. This order<br \/>\n     of acquittal is at Annexure 1 to the memo of petition. Learned counsel for<br \/>\n     the petitioner further submitted that the inquiry report is based upon no<br \/>\n     evidence. The witnesses of the Management have failed to prove the<br \/>\n     charges levelled against the petitioner. This aspect of the matter has not<br \/>\n     been   properly    appreciated    by   the   respondents.    Moreover,   the<br \/>\n     punishment awarded to the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to<br \/>\n     the charges, levelled against the petitioner, for the reasons that the<br \/>\n     petitioner was never indulged in such type of misconduct and never, in<br \/>\n     past, any such type of misconduct has been committed by the petitioner<br \/>\n     and never any charge was given to the petitioner and now the petitioner<br \/>\n     has already reached the age of superannuation on 31st October, 2010<br \/>\n     and, thus, there is no question of repetition of such type of misconduct,<br \/>\n     whatsoever, by the petitioner. There is no charge against the petitioner<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                     3.<\/span><br \/>\n     for his conspiracy or any benefit has been derived by the petitioner from<br \/>\n     the so called forged demand draft. Thus, the only charge is that the<br \/>\n     petitioner has not delivered the letter given from the Jogeshwar Colliery<br \/>\n     Branch to Ranchi Branch of Allahabad Bank and, therefore, let the order<br \/>\n     of punishment be quashed by this Court and the matter be remanded to<br \/>\n     the disciplinary authority for taking a fresh decision for imposing lesser<br \/>\n     punishment.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   I have heard learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, who has<br \/>\n     vehemently submitted that there is no procedural lapses in holding the<br \/>\n     departmental inquiry. The charges levelled against the petitioner have<br \/>\n     been proved, as stated in the inquiry report, given by the inquiry officer<br \/>\n     on 6th January, 1994. So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, it<br \/>\n     is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank that looking to<br \/>\n     the gravity of charge, the quantum of punishment is absolutely in<br \/>\n     consonence with the misconduct and it cannot be labelled as shockingly<br \/>\n     disproportionate punishment, because the petitioner has not delivered a<br \/>\n     post, given to him from Jogeshwar Colliery Branch to deliver the same at<br \/>\n     Ranchi Branch on 13th August, 1991, which has resulted into the delay in<br \/>\n     detection of the case and, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be<br \/>\n     dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and looking to the<br \/>\n     facts and circumstances of the case as also looking to the nature of the<br \/>\n     charges, levelled against the petitioner, as stated herein above, which is<br \/>\n     also reflected in Annexure 2 to the memo of petition, it appears that one<br \/>\n     letter was given to the petitioner from Jogeshwar Colliery Branch to<br \/>\n     deliver the same at Ranchi Branch on 13th August, 1991. The petitioner<br \/>\n     was an Armed Guard at Jogeshwar Colliery Branch of Allahabad Bank.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.   Looking to the 1st charge, it appears that the letter was pertaining to<br \/>\n     forged demand draft for Rs.60,000\/-. This demand draft was already<br \/>\n     encashed on 27th June, 1991 i.e. much prior to the letter dated 13th<br \/>\n     August, 1991, which was given to the petitioner for delivering the same<br \/>\n     at Ranchi Branch. Thus, the delay, if any, regarding encashment of the<br \/>\n     bank draft was over much earlier i.e. on 27th June, 1991. This so called<br \/>\n     letter dated 13th August, 1991 was given only for further inquiry and<br \/>\n     looking to 1st charge (which is reflected at Annexure 2 to the memo of<br \/>\n     petition), it appears that some delay has occurred in detection of the<br \/>\n     cause of encashment of a bank draft due to non-delivery of the aforesaid<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                      4.<\/span><br \/>\n      letter by the petitioner. This appears to be a highest charge against the<br \/>\n      petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.   So far as 2nd charge is concerned, though the letter was given at 2.30<br \/>\n      p.m. on 13th August, 1991 to the petitioner, in the attendance register the<br \/>\n      petitioner has shown his attendance from 10.15 a.m. to 5.45 p.m. The<br \/>\n      knowledge of the contents of the letter is also imposed upon the<br \/>\n      petitioner. Nobody knows whether an Armed Guard will be able to read<br \/>\n      that letter or not; whether it was in a sealed cover or not; whether the<br \/>\n      letter was in English or in Hindi language and whether the petitioner was<br \/>\n      at all able to read such language. All these facts are not coming from the<br \/>\n      evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.   Under the aforesaid circumstances, the punishment, imposed against<br \/>\n      the petitioner of forfeiture of twelve increments and that too with<br \/>\n      cumulative effect, appears to be shockingly disproportionate to the<br \/>\n      charges. Normally for non-delivery of a letter, such a punishment is<br \/>\n      grossly disproportionate, because the act of encashment of the demand<br \/>\n      draft was already over on 27th June, 1991 and the letter, which was to be<br \/>\n      delivered by the petitioner, was dated 13th August, 1991. It is not a<br \/>\n      charge against the petitioner that he has received some amount out of<br \/>\n      that Rs.60,000\/-, which has been encashed. Under these set of<br \/>\n      circumstances and also keeping in mind the fact that henceforth, there is<br \/>\n      no question of repeating such type of misconduct by petitioner<br \/>\n      whatsoever arises, because the petitioner has already retired from<br \/>\n      service upon reaching the age of superannuation on 31st October, 2010<br \/>\n      and moreover, the petitioner has also been acquitted in the criminal<br \/>\n      appeal by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi vide order dated 14th March,<br \/>\n      2007, I hereby quash and set aside the order, passed by the Regional<br \/>\n      Manager and Disciplinary Authority dated 27th May, 1994 (Annexure 2 to<br \/>\n      the memo of petition) as well as the order dated 3rd January, 1995,<br \/>\n      passed by the Deputy Manager-cum-Appellate Authority (Annexure B to<br \/>\n      the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents), so far it relates to the<br \/>\n      imposition of punishment upon the petitioner and, though the inquiry<br \/>\n      conducted by the respondents is in consonence with law and there is no<br \/>\n      procedural defect in conducting the departmental inquiry, since adequate<br \/>\n      opportunity of being heard has already been given to the petitioner, I<br \/>\n      hereby remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent-<br \/>\n      Bank for taking a fresh decision, so far as the quantum of punishment is<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">                                              5.<\/span><br \/>\n             concerned. This decision will be taken, in accordance with law, and after<br \/>\n             giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as early<br \/>\n             as possible and practicable.\n<\/p>\n<p>      12.    This writ petition is allowed and disposed of to the aforesaid extent.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                         (D.N.Patel, J.)<br \/>\nJharkhand High Court, Ranchi<br \/>\nDated the 22nd September, 2011<br \/>\nA.K.Verma\/ N.A.F.R.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Jharkhand High Court Harun Topno vs Allahabad Bank Thr Chief G.M. on 22 September, 2011 Writ Petition (S) No. 4701 of 2008 &#8212;&#8212; In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India &#8212;&#8212; Harun Topno &#8230;&#8230; Petitioner Versus 1. Allahabad Bank through the Chief General Manager, Allahabad Bank, Calcutta 2. [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-171152","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Harun Topno vs Allahabad Bank Thr Chief G.M. on 22 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Harun Topno vs Allahabad Bank Thr Chief G.M. on 22 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-04T08:41:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Harun Topno vs Allahabad Bank Thr Chief G.M. on 22 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-04T08:41:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1636,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Harun Topno vs Allahabad Bank Thr Chief G.M. on 22 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-04T08:41:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Harun Topno vs Allahabad Bank Thr Chief G.M. on 22 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Harun Topno vs Allahabad Bank Thr Chief G.M. on 22 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Harun Topno vs Allahabad Bank Thr Chief G.M. on 22 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-04T08:41:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Harun Topno vs Allahabad Bank Thr Chief G.M. on 22 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-04T08:41:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011"},"wordCount":1636,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011","name":"Harun Topno vs Allahabad Bank Thr Chief G.M. on 22 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-04T08:41:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/harun-topno-vs-allahabad-bank-thr-chief-g-m-on-22-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Harun Topno vs Allahabad Bank Thr Chief G.M. on 22 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171152","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=171152"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/171152\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=171152"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=171152"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=171152"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}