Bank officials found guilty of negligence and fraud in unauthorized withdrawals

The court found in favor of the petitioner, holding the bank officials guilty of negligence and fraud in the unauthorized withdrawal of fixed deposits. It deemed the writ petition maintainable against the bank and ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing the bank to pay the fixed deposit proceeds with interest. The court imposed an exemplary cost on the bank for misleading the court.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Suppression of Material Facts and Falsehood
2. Pre-closure of Fixed Deposits
3. Fraud and Negligence by Bank Officials
4. Maintainability of Writ Petition
5. Entitlement to Fixed Deposit Proceeds

Summary:

1. Suppression of Material Facts and Falsehood:
The petitioner alleged suppression of material facts and falsehood by the respondent bank. The court found that the bank officials acted negligently and fraudulently, leading to the unauthorized withdrawal of the petitioner's fixed deposits. The court stated, "The second and third respondents are guilty of pleading falsehood, suppression of material facts and misleading the court."

2. Pre-closure of Fixed Deposits:
The petitioner contended that he did not authorize the pre-closure of his fixed deposits, whereas the bank claimed the pre-closure was done based on the petitioner's request. The court noted, "It is the bounden duty of the bank to prove that after following the proper procedure, the pre-closure was done." The court found discrepancies in the bank's documentation, including differences in the bank's logo on the FDRs and missing signatures of the supervisor/manager.

3. Fraud and Negligence by Bank Officials:
The court highlighted the fraudulent and negligent acts of the bank officials, stating, "The bank officials acted in violation of norms and without proper authorization letter and without verification about the genuineness of the fixed deposits." The court observed that the bank officials failed to verify the authenticity of the authorization letters and FDRs, leading to the fraudulent withdrawal of funds.

4. Maintainability of Writ Petition:
The respondent bank argued that the writ petition was not maintainable and that the petitioner should approach the civil court. However, the court held that the writ petition was maintainable, citing precedents where the Supreme Court allowed writ petitions in cases involving public sector banks. The court stated, "The writ petition is maintainable against the respondent bank."

5. Entitlement to Fixed Deposit Proceeds:
The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to the proceeds of the fixed deposits, stating, "The petitioner is entitled to get the proceeds of the 7 FD receipts from the second respondent bank." The court directed the bank to pay the amount due under the fixed deposits along with interest, conditioned upon the petitioner furnishing an indemnity bond pending the CBI investigation.

Order:
The court allowed the writ petition and directed the second respondent bank to pay the amount payable under the seven fixed deposit receipts, treating the amount as if it is continuing in fixed deposits till the date of payment, with the same rate of interest. The petitioner was directed to hand over the original FDRs. The court also imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000 on the second respondent bank for pleading falsehood and suppressing material facts.

---