JACOB VARGHESE v. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY GOVERNOR, CENTRAL OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, AMAR BUILDING, SRI.P.M.ROAD, FORT MUMBAI, MAHARASTRA, PIN-400001. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF BANKING SUPERVISION, REVERSE BANK OF INDIA, CENTRE I, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, PIN-400005 THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN, RESERVE BANK OF INDIA BUILDING, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695033 SOUTH INDIAN BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR, KERALA-680001 MANAGING DIRECTOR SOUTH INDIAN BANK, HEAD OFFICE, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR, KERALA-680001 BRANCH MANAGER SOUTH INDIAN BANK, KARTHIKAPPALLY BRANCH, KARTHIKAPPALLY BRANCH, KARTHIKAPPALLY, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688011. W.P.(C).No. 21390 of 2019 : 2 : 7 INFORMATION OFFICER CUM ASSISTNAT GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK, REGIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA, RAMANCHIRA, MUTHOOR.P.O., THIRUVALLA, PIN-689107 BY ADVS. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.) SMT.S.AMBILY SMT.NAMITHA NAMBIAR SRI.SAJI THOMAS SRI.MICKY THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 21390 of 2019 : 3 : JUDGMENT The petitioner says that some of his deposits, including fixed deposits, have been marked lien by the 4th respondent Bank, on the allegation that he was complicit in some “large fraud” in the branch. He says that these allegations are peremptorily wrong and that he was never involved in any such at any point of time; and that this is manifest from the fact that the criminal investigation has not arrayed him as an accused, but only as a witness. He asserts that, therefore, the continuation of marking of lien on his accounts is illegal and unlawful.

2. Sri.George A.Cherian – learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.Ranjit S., appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that, when the Bank refused to lift the lien in the past, his client approached the learned Banking Ombudsman; but that his complaint was rejected through Ext.P12, merely saying that an investigation to the “large fraud” at the branch is going on. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that, as evident from Ext.P13, the investigation is now complete, under the aegis of an agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI); and W.P.(C).No. 21390 of 2019 : 4 : that it makes it manifest that his client is not an accused, but only a witness. He, therefore, prayed that the Bank may be directed to reconsider his client's request for lifting of the lien on his accounts, adverting to Ext.P13, de hors Ext.P12 order of the learned Banking Ombudsman.

3. Sri.K.K.Chandran Pillai – learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.S.Ambily, appearing for respondents 4 to 7, submitted that the situation is not as simple as has been now sought to be made out by the petitioner because, there were large scale fraud and irregularities in the branch of the Bank; and that the deposits of various customers, including the petitioner, were brought under the radar of investigation. He submitted that, it is, therefore, that when the petitioner approached the learned Banking Ombudsman, it was rejected through Ext.P12, saying that the investigation is going on; but added that, if this Court is only inclined to direct his client to reconsider the petitioner's claim based on Ext.P13, there does not appear to be any legal impediment in doing so; but prayed that this Court may not make any affirmative declarations in his favour and leave it to the said respondent to take an appropriate decision thereon, as per law. W.P.(C).No. 21390 of 2019 : 5 :

4. When I consider and evaluate the afore rival submissions of the learned Senior Counsel, it is evident that the continuation of lien on the accounts of the petitioner would depend upon the investigation and any other rights the Bank may have against it, as per law. That said, it is luculent that Banking Ombudsman had rejected the petitioner's complaint, through Ext.P12, at a time when the investigation was going on, and finding that there was an allegation of large scale fraud at the branch, involving various accounts, including that of the petitioner. However, the learned Banking Ombudsman never concluded that the petitioner was guilty; and rightfully so, because this was a matter that could have been ascertained only through a proper criminal enquiry.

5. The afore being so, Ext.P13, prima facie, indicates that an agency like the 'CBI' has found that the petitioner is not an accused. If this be so, certainly, the Bank must reconsider the matter, adverting to the said report, de hors Ext.P12, which was issued by the learned Banking Ombudsman, as said above, in the relevant circumstances at the given time. Resultantly, I allow this writ petition to the limited extent of directing the competent Authority of the Bank to hear the W.P.(C).No. 21390 of 2019 : 6 : petitioner and advert to Ext.P13; and thus take a final decision as to whether the lien on the accounts in question requires to be continued any further. A final decision in this regard, after hearing the petitioner, shall be communicated to him, not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that, I have not entered into the merits of any of the rival contentions of the parties and that all of them are left open to be decided appositely by the Bank, while the afore exercise is completed. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE W.P.(C).No. 21390 of 2019 : 7 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21390/2019 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P9 EXHIBIT P10 EXHIBIT P11 EXHIBIT P12 Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF INDEMNITY DATED 20.12.2018 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT BANK TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22.02.2019 ADDRESSED TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 07.03.2019 BEARING NUMBER TVLA.RO.GEN.182.2018-2019 ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.02.2019 ADDRESSED TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD DATED 25.02.2019 EVINCING THE RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P4 BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.03.2019 BEARING NO.SIB/KPLY/GEN/209-A/18-19 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION (ALONG WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 26.04.2019 BEARING NUMBER OBO(T)7014/CTS3824/2018-19 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 31.05.2019 ALONG WITH FORWARDING NOTE FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.05.2019 ISSUED B Y THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER TRUE COPY OF THE REPLICATION DATED 07.06.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER 14.06.2019 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF CHARGE SHEET NO.13/2020 FILED BY THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION BEFORE HON`BLE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI CASES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM