- (1.) The backdrop of the writ petition filed by the petitioner Shri Sujit Kumar Singh against the respondents is as follows:- (i) The petitioner opened a bank account with Respondent No.6 the Central Bank of India, Gray Street, Branch of Kolkata being S.B. A/c. No.10099, wherefrom though Rs.1,00,000/- only was withdrawn by the petitioner on 20.12.1992 by withdrawal slip and thereafter though amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was supposed to remain as balance he came to learn on 01.08.1994 that in the pass book which was lying in the custody of the Respondent No.6 a sum of Rs.8,000/- to 9,000/- only was lying in his account. (ii) On challenge the Respondent No.6 had shown the petitioner two withdrawal slips respectively dated 07.04.1994 and 29.04.1994 by which Rs. 1, 00,000/- and Rs. 95,000/- were allegedly withdrawal. (iii) The petitioner having claimed those two withdrawal slips as forged and having not signed by him, submitted complain before the bank so that his bank account be restored in order accumulating Rs. 2,00,000/- on withdrawal of Rs. 1,00,000/- only by him on 20.12.1992, and, simultaneously on his complain Burtola P.S. Case No.236 was started, which of course on investigation ended into final report for want of evidence. (iv) Then on representation before the then Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate the said Police Case was reopened for fresh investigation. On the other hand since the bank of Ombudsman had rejected prayer of the petitioner for restoration of his bank account with Rs. 2,00,000/- which was alleged to have not been withdrawn by him, the Hon'ble Court by order dated 03.07.2004 in earlier Writ Petition No.10225 (W) of 2004 setting aside the order of the banking Ombudsman directed "to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order". The Respondent No.2 the banking Ombudsman thereafter upon hearing rejected the complaint dated 01.03.2004 lodged by the petitioner, who thereby came up with the instant writ petition afresh under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to rescind, recall and set aside the order dated 28th October, 2004 passed the respondent No.2 commanding the respondents to pay to the petitioner the sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- unauthorizedly withdrawn by two forged withdrawal slips by the employees of the Respondent No.6 and for other reliefs made in the writ petitioner. Despite submission of affidavit-in-opposition by respondent No.6 for self and also respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 and running of the matter in the list none appeared till the last date of hearing.
(2.) Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee, Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted to issue the directions upon the Respondent No. 6 and other respondents so that the bank account of the petitioner be restored with updated amount including the balance of Rs.2,00,000/-, which has been grabbed by the unscrupulous employees of Respondent No.6 and the respondents banks cannot avoid vicarious liability.
(3.) From the reconstructed record, since the major part of the original one has been damaged by white ant, it appears that on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner before the Anti-Fraud Section, Detective Department, Lalbazar, Calcutta-1 a case being Section 'C' C/No. 236 dated 03.08.1994 under Section 120B/420/466/468/471 IPC was started which ended into FRT vide Memo No.DD/FRD dated 07.10.1997 Annexure-P2. Said investigation was reopened under order dated 15.11.1997 passed by the then Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta and on the basis of the evidence coupled with the report of the expert's opinion the investigating agency (Detective Department Kolkata) suggesting prima facie case against the accused 1. Joy Prokash Sing and 2. Sunit Kumar Sarkar for the offence under Sections 120B/409/471 IPC and 13(1)(c) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 submitted the charge-sheet before the then Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Kolkata simultaneously moving the Regional Manager of the Central Bank of India having its office at A.P.C. Road Kolkata-700 004 for according sanction for the prosecution required under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for prosecuting the charge-sheeted accused persons, they being the then employee of the Central Bank of India vide Annexure P-10. The result of the criminal trial of course is not available within the records.;