Venugopalan V vs The Punjab National Bank
2021 Latest Caselaw 6407 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021/4TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                   WP(C).No.14581 OF 2019(W)


PETITIONER:

              VENUGOPALAN V.,
              AGED 59 YEARS,
              S/O. LATE PADMANABHAN NAIR,
              RESIDING AT VENAT HOUSE,
              SHORNUR, PALAKKAD-679121.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
              K.R.GANESH

RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
              DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE,
              BHIKHAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 066.

     2        THE CIRCLE HEAD,
              PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CIRCLE OFFICE,
              GOVINDAPURAM, KOZHIKODE-673 016.

     3        THE MANAGER,
              PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,
              BRANCH OFFICE,
              HOSPITAL ROAD,
              NILAMBUR - 679 329,
              MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

     4        THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
              EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,
              REGIONAL OFFICE, ERANHIPALAM P.O,
              KOZHIKODE-673 006

     5        MR. P.ABOO, PROPRIETOR,
              P.G. MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL,
              V.K. ROAD, NILAMBUR-679 329,
              MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
 WP(C) No.14581/2019
                             :2 :


              R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY
              R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.D.PREM KAMATH
              R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS
              R4 BY DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA, SC, EPF ORG.
              R5 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL N.SHENOI

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 23.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.14581/2019
                                :3 :




                        JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~

Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2021

The petitioner, a Manager who has taken Voluntary

Retirement from the 1st respondent-Bank, is before this Court

seeking to direct respondents 1 to 3 to allow the petitioner to

withdraw the Fixed Deposit amount of ₹3,96,601/-, which the

petitioner was compelled to deposit pursuant to Ext.P2 with

lien to the Bank forthwith.

2. The petitioner states that he joined as a Clerk in the

Nedungadi Bank Ltd., on 19.03.1984. The said Bank was

merged with the 1st respondent-Punjab National Bank in the

year 2003. In the 1st respondent Bank, the petitioner became

an officer. He was promoted as a Manager and while

continuing as such, he applied for Voluntary Retirement. The

petitioner was relieved from service on 09.07.2018. WP(C) No.14581/2019

3. Though the petitioner was sanctioned terminal

benefits, the 2nd respondent-Circle Head of the Bank required

the petitioner to deposit an amount of ₹3,96,601/- in the Bank

in the form of a Fixed Deposit with lien marked in favour of the

Bank. The petitioner states that the said request was in

connection with the execution by the petitioner of an

attachment order issued by the 4th respondent-Assistant

Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 8F of the

Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,

1952.

4. The petitioner states that while he was acting as a

Manager, the 4th respondent-Assistant Provident Fund

Commissioner issued notice to the petitioner under Section 8F

of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act, 1952, directing the petitioner to pay a total

amount of ₹3,96,601/- from the amount standing to the credit

of the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent had defaulted in

payment of Provident Fund dues and it was the said defaulted

amount which was sought to be recovered from the accounts WP(C) No.14581/2019

of the 5th respondent.

5. As the demand made by the 4 th respondent was a

statutory demand, the petitioner paid the amount due to the

Provident Fund Organisation from the accounts of the 5 th

respondent. It is the said amount that is sought to be

withheld from the petitioner on his voluntary retirement, by

forcibly making a Fixed Deposit with a lien to the Bank. The

petitioner requested the Bank to release the Fixed Deposit

amount deposited by him. The Bank has not released the

deposit. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner

has filed this writ petition seeking to declare that the action of

respondents 1 to 3 in making the petitioner to open a F.D.

account of ₹3,96,601/- without allowing the petitioner to

withdraw the same as illegal, unconstitutional and violative of

Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India.

6. Respondents 1 to 3 filed counter affidavit.

Respondents 1 to 3 stated that the petitioner was a Manager

in the Bank. Respondents 1 to 3 received a complaint from

the 5th respondent as regards unauthorised deduction of WP(C) No.14581/2019

₹3,96,601/- from his account for the purpose of paying to the

Provident Fund Authorities. The deduction from the accounts

of the 5th respondent was made by the petitioner while he was

Manager of the Bank. Therefore, respondents 1 to 3 required

the petitioner to make a Fixed Deposit with a lien to the Bank,

to cover the amount.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and the

learned counsel for the 5th respondent.

8. From the pleadings in the writ petition and

arguments raised by counsel on either side, certain facts are

discernible. The petitioner was Manager of the 1 st

respondent-Bank. The 5th respondent, as an employer, had a

liability of ₹3,96,601/- to the employees Provident Fund

Organisation. The Provident Fund Authorities issued orders

under Section 8F of the Employees Provident Fund and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, requiring the petitioner to

debit the said amount from the accounts of the 5 th respondent

and pay the same to the Provident Fund Organisation. The WP(C) No.14581/2019

petitioner complied with the said statutory direction.

9. The contention of respondents 1 to 3 is that the

amount was deducted from the Cash Credit Account of the 5 th

respondent and not from any Savings Bank Account or

Current Account of the 5th respondent. A Bank Manager is

not competent to deduct any amount from Cash Credit

Account of the 5th respondent without his concurrence. An

order under Section 8F of the Provident Fund and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act cannot be complied with by

deducting the amount from the Cash Credit Account of the 5 th

respondent without his permission. The 5 th respondent has

made a complaint in this regard. If his complaint is found to

be genuine, the Bank will have to pay the 5 th respondent, the

amount deducted from his account. Since it is the petitioner

who has made the said deduction, the petitioner will have to

make good the same, in case the 5 th respondent raises a

dispute.

10. It may be noted that the respondents are finding

fault with the petitioner for obeying a statutory order. The WP(C) No.14581/2019

petitioner has only deducted the amount from the account of

the 5th respondent and remitted the same to the Provident

Fund Authorities as statutorily required and as demanded by

the Provident Fund Organisation.

11. It may be true that amount from Cash Credit

Account of the 5th respondent cannot be deducted without the

permission of the 5th respondent. Perhaps, the petitioner was

not aware of the delicate difference in law, between a Savings

Bank Account and a Cash Credit Account. If the petitioner

has committed any misconduct, the Bank should have

proceeded against him by initiating disciplinary proceedings.

The Bank, however, permitted the petitioner to retire

voluntarily. It is to cover the probable liability of the Bank that

on retirement, the petitioner was required to make a Fixed

Deposit with a lien to the Bank. The petitioner cannot be

forced to keep his Fixed Deposit with the Bank for an

indefinite period.

In the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is

disposed of directing respondents 1 to 3 to release the Fixed WP(C) No.14581/2019

Deposit amount made by the petitioner, on his demand.

Respondents 1 to 3 will be at liberty to insist for an indemnity

bond executed by the petitioner as a condition for releasing

the Fixed Deposit.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/23.02.2021 WP(C) No.14581/2019

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF HTE PENSION PAYMENT ORDER DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.7.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.

KR/KK/17952/ENF III (3)/2017/3174 DATED 17.8.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.

KR/KK/17952/ENF III(3)/2017/3175 DATED 17.8.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.4.2018 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.

KR/KKD/17952/ENF. 3(3)/2018/4454 DATED 7.9.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE CHIEF MANAGER OF THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.10.2018 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 1.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE BANK TO THE PETITIONER.

 WP(C) No.14581/2019



EXHIBIT P9            TRUE     COPY     OF      LETTER    NO.
                      KR/KK/17952/ENF      3(3)/2019    DATED

26.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE GENERAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.05.2018.

EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.07.2018.

EXHIBIT R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.07.2018.

SR