Vandana Sharma vs Punjab National Bank
2006 Latest Caselaw 1780 Del

JUDGMENT

S.L. Bhayana, J.

1. This is an appeal arising out of the order of the Learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 20th January, 2005 wherein the learned Additional District Judge has decreed the suit of the plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 14,31,943/- with pendente lite and future interest @ 20.75% per annum with quarterly rests from the date of filing of the suit till realisation of the amount.

2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are that the plaintiff is a nationalised bank. The defendant was working as a Manager with the plaintiff bank in its branch office at N-43, South Extension Part-I, New Delhi w.e.f. 15.04.1994 to 06.05.1995. The defendant was also in charge in respect of remittances including draft, cash orders, TPO's, etc. On 20.08.1995, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff bank that 13 entries of cash orders were made by the defendant under her own signatures only and cash orders were issued by defendant herself. Although, under the bank rules and regulations, cash orders beyond a sum of Rs. 10,000/- were to be signed by two authorised officers but the cash orders in question were signed by the defendant alone. All these 13 cash orders have been paid by the plaintiff bank on various dates on presentation through clearing by other banks. Out of these 13 cash orders, 10 cash orders were passed for payment by the defendant herself while the remaining three cash orders were cleared by the other officers. At the relevant time, the defendant removed and destroyed the corresponding debit and credit vouchers of the aforesaid cash orders as she was the custodian of the records in the branch office of the plaintiff at that time. The defendant herself used to make vouchers in different accounts for issuance of the cash orders and directed the dealing clerk for preparation of the cash orders after passing the vouchers herself. It has been found from the concerned parties that they got the aforesaid cash orders on payment of cash personally from the defendant whereas all those amounts which were paid in cash were not accounted for in the books of accounts of the plaintiff bank. Over and above the aforesaid cash orders, the defendant has also made certain unauthorised entries in the books of the plaintiff bank for which the defendant had no debit authority. The defendant has taken away a sum of Rs. 6,08,000/- in an illegal and unauthorised manner from the accounts of the plaintiff bank and thereby the defendant has caused wrongful gain to herself and wrongful loss to the plaintiff bank. The plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the aforesaid amount from the defendant. The plaintiff has also claimed interest @ 20.75% per annum with quarterly rests against the aforesaid amount from the defendant. Interest @ 20.75% per annum with quarterly rests is recoverable from the defendant from the date of each cash order in question up to 03.08.1998 which comes to Rs. 8,23,943/-. The plaintiff had claimed a total sum of Rs. 14,31,943/- from the defendant. The plaintiff bank also served a legal notice dated 09.07.1998 upon the defendant through his counsel but despite the said notice, the defendant has failed to make the payment of the aforesaid amount to the plaintiff bank.

3. The defendant has contested the suit by filing a written statement to the same. The defendant denied all the allegations of the plaintiff bank made in their plaint. She alleged that she was working with the plaintiff bank at the relevant time but she always gave the correct statement of accounts to the plaintiff. She further admitted the receipt of legal notice sent by the plaintiff bank for recovery of Rs. 17,76,942/- although the plaintiff had filed the suit only for a sum of Rs. 14,31,943/-. The defendant denied that the plaintiff bank is entitled to recover the aforesaid amount from her.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial court:

1. Whether the defendant siphoned off Rs. 6,08,000/- as alleged in para No. 9 of the plaint? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest and, if so, at what rate and to what amount? OPP.

3. Relief.

5. After going through the evidence on record and after hearing both the parties, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 14,31,943/- from the defendant in this case. The learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 14,31,943/- with interest @ 20.75% per annum pendente lite and future with quarterly rests from the date of filing of the suit till realisation of the amount.

6. We have gone through the evidence by way of affidavit filed by Sh. V.K. Dhingra who has proved that he is duly authorised person to file the present suit. He has also stated that the bank is entitled to recover from the defendant the amount of cash orders in question up to 03.08.1998 which comes to Rs.8,23,943/- along with interest @ 20.75% per annum with quarterly rests and the total amount comes to Rs. 14,31,943/-. He has further submitted that the bank had given a legal notice to the defendant despite which the defendant had failed to make the payment. We have also gone through the cross examination of this witness but nothing significant has been elicited in cross examination to impeach the credibility of this witness.

7. PW2 Sh. V.K. Gupta has in his affidavit stated that he was working as an officer from July 1994 to May 1998. During the period from 15.04.1994 to 06.05.1995, the defendant was working as Manager in the aforesaid branch of the plaintiff bank and was looking after the branch and functioning as a hall in charge and also in charge of remittances including draft, cash orders, TPOs, etc. On 20.08.1995, during the tallying of the accounts of the branch office and on further inquiries, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff bank that 13 entries of the cash orders were issued by the defendant under her own signatures which were not as per the rules and regulations of the plaintiff bank. As per bank rules, the cash orders beyond a sum of Rs. 10,000/- were to be signed by two authorised officers but the cash orders were issued by the defendant alone. The aforesaid 13 cash orders had been paid by the plaintiff bank on presentation on various dates through clearing by other banks. On verification and inquiries, it was found that the parties got the aforesaid cash orders on payment of cash personally from the defendant but the said amounts were not accounted for in the books of accounts of the plaintiff bank. The defendant had siphoned off a sum of Rs. 6,08,000/- illegally and unauthorisedly from the accounts of the plaintiff bank.

8. In the cross examination, this witness has given the procedure as to how cash orders are prepared and he has stated that the balance is not tallied everyday and it is the job of the Manager to tally the cash orders. It was in July - August 1995 when they came to know that the balance did not tally. He denied the suggestion that defendant did not receive the cash from the customers.

9. We have also gone through the affidavit of Ms. Vandana Sharma, defendant, by way of evidence in which she has stated that during the relevant period April 1994 to May 1995, she had worked at the branch of Punjab and Sindh Bank at South Extension Part I, New Delhi. She has denied that she did not follow the procedure during this period. She has denied that she received the cash personally from the clients for issuance of the pay orders amounting to Rs. 6,08,000/-. She has denied that the plaintiff bank has suffered loss due to malafides of the defendant. In the cross examination, she has admitted that she was designated as Sub Manager (Hall) in the South Extension Branch. She further admitted that she was in charge of day to day affairs of the plaintiff bank carried out in the said bank where she was in charge. She has admitted that the cash orders, ledgers were not being tallied in the said branch before she joined it. She admitted that all the 13 cash orders were signed by her. She also admitted that she had passed these cash orders when received for clearing but they used to be put up before her by the concerned clerk. She has denied that she has played a fraud upon the plaintiff bank.

10. We have been taken through the statement of one Sh. Naresh Duggal. He has deposed before the court that he has brought the cash book for the relevant period. He has also stated that no payment of Rs. 70,000/- or Rs. 20,000/- was received on 26.04.1994 by the bank and subsequently, no payment of Rs. 60,000/- was received on 17.05.1994, Rs. 1,00,000/- on 27.05.1994, Rs. 1,00,000/- on 19.06.94, Rs. 15,000/- on 14.06.1994, Rs. 15,000/- on 16.06.1994, Rs. 50,000/- on 17.06.1994, Rs. 12,000/- on 22.06.1994, Rs. 19000/- on 24.06.94, Rs. 60,000/- on 25.06.94, Rs. 72,000/- on 28.06.94 and Rs. 50,000/- against cash order No. 1354/94. He has stated that the amount of cash against these cash orders was not received by the bank nor any entry was made in the ledger or record of the bank regarding receipt of the cash payment against these cash orders. We have also gone through the cross examination of this witness by learned Counsel for the defendant but nothing significant could be elicited in the cross examination which could impeach the credibility of this witness.

11. We have also gone through the other relevant record produced by the witnesses in this case regarding the cash orders issued by the defendant under her signatures. After going through the statements of the witnesses and after going through the record produced by the witnesses in this case, we have come to the conclusion that plaintiff bank has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the defendant. It has been proved on record by the plaintiff that 13 cash orders were issued by the defendant under her signatures and although under the bank rules, these cash orders were to be signed by two authorised officers, whereas all these cash orders were issued only by the defendant herself. It has also been proved on record by the plaintiff bank that the cash against these cash orders was not deposited with the plaintiff bank regarding which the cash orders were issued by the defendant to the customers. It has also been proved on record by the witnesses of the plaintiff that the defendant has siphoned off Rs. 6,08,000/- from the plaintiff bank.

12. Learned Counsel for the appellant has stated that the trial court has awarded interest @ 20.75% per annum with quarterly rests which is exhorbitant and is on the higher side. We agree with the submissions made by counsel for the appellant on this score and we feel that ends of justice would be served if the rate of interest is reduced from 20.75% to 6% per annum, simple interest, on the principal sum of Rs. 6,08,000/-. We, therefore, hold that the plaintiff bank is entitled to a decree in the sum of Rs. 6,08,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date till realisation. The decree of the trial court is, accordingly, modified to that extent. With these observations, the appeal of the appellant is partly allowed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.