Bangalore District Court
Electronics And Radar Development vs Shri Subhankar Ghose on 19 June, 2020
Form
No.9
(Civil)
Title
Sheet
for
Judgmen
PRESENT: SMT. PRASHANTHI G,
B.A.(Law) LL.B.,
XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
Dated this the 19 th day of June 2020
PLAINTIFF: Electronics and Radar Development
Establishment, Government of India
- Ministry of Defence, Defence
Research and Development
Organisataion, Post Box No.9324,
C.V.Raman Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 093
By its Director.
[By Sri Prakash Rao.K, Advocate]
/v e r s u s/
DEFENDANT: Shri Subhankar Ghose,
Aged about 37 years,
Son of Late Dipak Kumar Ghose,
No.61, Karthik Nagar,
Outer Ring Road, Marathahalli,
BENGALURU-560 037.
Also at:
No.14, Bidhan Park,
KOLKATA -700090.
[By Sri MS, Advocate]
Date of institution of the : 9/11/2016
suit
2
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
Nature of the suit : For recovery of money
Date of commencement of : 20/6/2017
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 19/6/2020
Judgment was
pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
3 7 10
(Prashanthi. G)
XXVII ACCJ: B'LORE.
The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendants
directing the defendant to pay sum of Rs.14,60,592/-
(Rupees fourteen lakhs sixty thousand five hundred
ninety two only) together with interest at Government
rate per annum from the date of this suit till its
realisation, and for the cost of the suit.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The plaintiff submits that, Defence Research
and Development Organization (DRDO) under
Ministry of Defence is a net work of more than 50
Establishments/ laboratories covering various
disciplines like Aeronautics, Armament, Electronics,
Combat Vehicles, Engineering Systems,
3
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
Instrumentation, Missiles, Advanced Computing and
Simulation, Special Materials, Naval Systems, Life
Sciences, Training, Information systems and
Agriculture etc.,
The plaintiff submits that, Electronics and Radar
Development Establishment (LRDE) is one of the
premier Establishments of Defence Research and
Development Organization (DRDO) under Ministry of
Defence. The plaintiff establishment is committed to
the indigenous development of modern Radar System
to cater to the needs of Defence Services.
The plaintiff further submits that the defendant
got selected to the Post of Scientist 'B' in DRDO and
appointed with effect from 6 th March 2003. On
completion of the Point-01 Orientation Course at
Institute of Armament Technology, Pune, the
defendant was posted to the plaintiff establishment
and he reported for duty on 5th August 2003. The
defendant, while serving in the plaintiff establishment,
was subsequently promoted to the post of Scientist 'C'
with effect from 1st July 2006 and later to the Post of
4
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
Scientist 'D' with effect from 1st July 2010, in terms of
Defence Research & Development Service Rules, 1979.
Plaintiff further submits that, while holding the
post of Scientist 'D' at plaintiff establishment, the
defendant was nominated/detailed for Master of
Engineering, (ME) (Signal Processing) at Indian
Institute of Science for the period of two Years from
July 2010 to August 2012 at the cost of Government
of India, subject to the condition that the defendant
will be under contractual obligation to serve DRDO for
a period of four years after completion of the said
course. The nomination of the defendant to the above
said ME Course was with the concurrence of
defendant. Accordingly, the defendant i.e., Shri
SUBHANKAR GHOSE has executed a bond on 23 rd
June 2010 binding himself and his heirs, executors
and administrators to pay to the President of India, a
sum of Rs.14,60,592/- (Rupees fourteen lakhs sixty
thousand five hundred ninety two only) on account of
his having been detailed for training connected with
ME at Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru for the
5
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
period of two years from Jul 2010 to August 2012 at
the cost of Government of India, together with interest
thereon from the date of demand at the Government
rates for the time being in force on Government loans.
Plaintiff further submits that, during the period
of the defendant's higher studies, i.e., ME, his Pay &
Allowances as applicable under the Rules in vogue
were also claimed every month and paid through his
Bankers. That on successful completion of the ME
Course, the defendant rejoined for duty at plaintiff
establishment on 30th July 2012.
The plaintiff further submits that, during
contractual obligation i.e., when the bond dated 23 rd
June 2010 executed by the defendant, to serve the
plaintiff establishment, for a period of four years on
completion of the above said ME Course, the
defendant vide letter dated 7th April 2014 submitted
his resignation to the Post of Scientist 'D' and also
executed other connected supporting documents such
as declaration etc., as required under the rules,
wherein the defendant has in clear terms assured that
6
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
the 'Bond money including all Government dues, will
be deposited before getting relieved from service." The
defendant's resignation letter dated 7 th April 2014
together with supporting documents was forwarded to
DRDO Headquarters, New Delhi for consideration. In
response, DRDO Headquarters, New Delhi vide letter
No.DOP/07/A/75751/M/01 dated 19th September
2014 conveyed the acceptance of defendant's
resignation by the competent authority with an advice
to ensure that all government dues are settled/
adjusted before relieving the Officer. Further, the
defendant remained unauthorisedly absent from duty
with effect from 31st July 2014 without any intimation
or without depositing the Bond Money and without
submitting the mandatory clearance for his relieving,
as assured by him during the process of his aforesaid
resignation letter.
The defendant was informed by the plaintiff to
deposit the bond money in connection with his higher
studies to enable the plaintiff establishment to relieve
him from duty vide plaintiff's Email dated 25 th
7
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
September 2014. As the defendant failed to respond
with the above he was once again advised vide
plaintiff establishment letter/s dated 8th October 2014
and 20th October 2014 to settle the bond amount and
also to report for duty, to process his case to relieve
him from duties. In reply, Sri Subhankar Ghose the
defendant vide letter dated 8th October 2014 has
stated that, "the refund does not arise as he has
fulfilled the obligations set out in the bond".
The plaintiff establishment issued another letter
through email to the defendant on 4 th November 2014
informing him that, his resignation becomes effective
not merely by acceptance by the competent authority
concerned, but will become effective only when he is
actually relieved from his duty after clearing all
Government dues and submitting his mandatory
clearance form. The defendant has also been informed
that, he is absent from duty without prior permission
or sanction of leave and further advised him to settle
the bond amount failing which, he will be liable for
both legal and departmental action. In response, the
8
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
defendant in his reply dated 24 th November 2014,
stated that he has fulfilled all the obligations
mentioned in the bond and there is no question of
repaying money and also explained the reasons for
having left the Office with effect from 31 st July 2014.
Plaintiff further submits that, the plaintiff
establishment issued a reminder letter dated 1 st
December 2014 to the defendant to report for duty
immediately and refund the bond amount. The
defendant vide his reply dated 24 th December 2014
has stated that, no action on his resignation letter
dated 7th April 2014 has been taken during the entire
notice period of 90 days and even thereafter till he left
the establishment on 31st July 2014, further that a
copy of the bond mentioned in the letters had not
been given to him which is against the principles of
natural justice. The defendant has also been
repeatedly intimated vide plaintiff establishment
letters dated 22nd January 2015 and dated 24th
February 2015 informing about his unauthorised
absence from duty and also left the office without
9
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
setting the bond amount. He was also repeatedly
advised further to comply with the same failing which
he will be liable for both legal and departmental action
against him.
The plaintiff further submits that, since the
defendant failed to comply with his contractual
obligation in terms of the bond executed by him, he
has not been officially relieved of his duties. Instead of
complying with the contractual obligation, he started
making protracted correspondence. The plaintiff was
forced to issue another reminder letter dated 23 rd July
2015 to the defendant reiterating that , his
resignation becomes effective not merely when it is
accepted by the competent authority, but only when
he is actually relieved of his duties after completion of
all the formalities and also refunding the bond
amount pending against him on account of his
training at Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru for
the period from July 2010 to August 2012 at the cost
of Government of India. He was also advised to report
for duty and also intimated that, holding of
10
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
Government Property such as Identity Card and
Campus Badge un-authorisedly, amounts to
misconduct under CCS (Conduct) Rules. Further
advised to refund the Bond Money with interest
immediately and to submit clearance certificate within
15 days failing which necessary disciplinary and legal
action will be initiated against him at his cost and
risk. In response, the defendant in his reply dated 31 st
August 2015 has stated that, on expiry of notice
period of 90 days, the employer- employee
relationship has been ceased to exist. Further stated
that, all obligations set out in the bond and returning
of Library Cards, Punching Card etc., have been
fulfilled as intimated vide letter dated 30 th June 2015
and there is no action pending from his side and also
sttaed that, he is not a "Working Scientist 'D' in
LRDE" and will not entertain any correspondence in
future if it is addressed as a working Scientist 'D' in
LRDE.
The plaintiff further submits that the defendant
has been once again finally advised vide plaintiff's
11
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
letter dated 9th September 2015 to refund bond
amount of Rs.14,60,592/- together with interest on
account of his sponsorship of ME Course at Indian
Institute of Science, Bengaluru, for the period from
July 2020 to August 2012 at Government cost.
Further intimated him that, till payment of
Government dues pending against him and
submission of proper clearance certificate he is
deemed to be held in the strength of the establishment
and thereby advised him to refund the bond amount
with interest and also to submit clearance certificate
duly cleared by all the divisions of plaintiff
establishment immediately, failing which, appropriate
administrative action will be initiated against him in
accordance with Rules in vogue without any further
notice.
The defendant has failed to comply with the
contractual obligation and also undertaking given by
him at the time of processing his resignation letter in
not refunding the Bond amount to the tune of
Rs.14,60,592/- with an ill motive and for personal
12
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
gian, assigning unbelievable reasons, resigned to the
Government Service and thereby, put a burden on the
government for which the defendant is liable to pay
interest since it is government dues. Hence with no
other alternative, this recovery suit has been filed.
The cause of action to the s uit arose on 23 rd
June 2010 when defendant has executed a bond in
connection with his ME training/ course at Indian
Institute of Science, Bengaluru for the period from
July 2010 to August 2012 at the cost of Government
of India, and on 7th April 2014 the date when
defendant has submitted his resignation letter to the
Post of Scientist 'D' further the date from 19 th
September 2014 he has been asked to settle all
Government dues well before leaving the plaintiff
establishment and subsequently within the
jurisdiction of this Court.
3. The summons is duly served to the
defendant. Defendant appeared through his counsel
and filed written statement.
13
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
4. The main contentions of the defendant in
the written statement are as under:
It is submitted by the defendant that he has
completed his studies, graduation as B.Tch in
Elecronic and Telecommunication Engineer Degree
from the Vidyasagar University. Thereafter, he applied
for the post of Scientist "B" in DRDO, pursuant to the
Notification issued by the Ministry of Defence,
Government of India and he was selected and
appointed as a Scientist "B" in DRDO, on 6/3/2003.
After completing his training programme, the parent
Department of DRDO, posted to LRDE, the plaintiff
herein which is attached to DRDO. Eversince from
the date of appointment, he has been discharging his
duties as a Scientist "B" without any irregularity or
blemish and with the best satisfaction of his Superior
Officer in the Institution. After completion of 3 years
of service, he was promoted to Scientist "C" and after
completion of 4 years, he was promoted as Scientist
"D". On completion of 7 years of his service, the
parent Department of DRDO, sent for training to the
14
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
Indian Institution of Science Bangalore, in view of his
best performance in the interview conducted by the
Indian Institute of Science.
Defendant further submtis that, as per the
Regulation of the Ministry of Defence, an employee
going for deputation to higher studies, training or
acquiring further research in the reputed Institutions,
required to execute a Bond in favour of the Ministry.
Accordingly, this defendant executed the bond and
relieved from the LRDE and reported on 1/7/2010 at
Indian Institution of Science. The defendant was
executed the Bon which is a formalities, prescribed by
the Ministry to overall control the employee. However,
there is no any such condition imposed in the Bond
that he should comeback to the parent Institution and
work for a period of 4 years.
Defendant further submits that, on completion of
training programme at Indian Institution of Sciences,
Bangalore, he come back to the plaintiff establishment
on 1/8/2012 and reportd for his duty. In the 1 st week
of March, 2014, he was contacted his Superior Officer
15
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
and informed to his Head of the Department, who is
Superior Officer of this defendant regarding
resignation from his post and such other particulars.
On obtaining the clarification, he tendered his
resignation letter to the Director and to the parent
institution and also the Head Quarters of DRDO,
Ministry of Defence, New Delhi dated 7/4/2014. On
looking into the resignation letter, it is clearly stated
that, defendant ue to unavoidable circumstances, he
could not able to continue with his service in his
parent department and requested to accept the
resignation and relieve from duty on 30/5/2014.
However this defendant did not receive any response /
reply from the parent institution. Further as per the
procedure contemplated and also as per the service
rules of Ministry of defence, if an employee intending
to apply for resignation, he must required to submit
an application well in advance i.e., prior to 90 days (3
months) to the concerned Head of the Department.
Accordingly, from the dat eof submitting his
resignation letter, the defendant has completed for a
16
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
perid of 90 days and in addition to some more 30
days. The said statutory notice period came to be
completed on 5/7/2014. However, this defendant did
not receive any communication letter from the plaintiff
or from the parent department. In view of the same,
the defendant has continued to work till the end of
July, 2014. The defendant made further request with
the plaintiff, seeking to relieve from his duty on
completion of 90 days. However, the plaintiff did not
taken any action even after lapse of 120 days.
Therefore, this defendant without any alternative
stopped from attending his duty from 1/8/2014 in the
plaintiff institution. Eventhough the plaintiff did not
take any action on the letter of resignation, in
inadvertently, paid the salary for the month of August
2014 to the defendant Bank account. The said fact
also been intimating to the plaintiff institution by the
defendant, having wrongly remitting to his account.
Thereafter once again the defendant approached the
higher officer and brought to the notice with regard to
remittance of one month salary for the month of
17
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
August 2014. Immediately the plaintiff itself got
debited to the plaintiff account directly through Bank
Account. Subsequently on 8/10/2014, this defendant
received the acknowledgement for having accpeting
the resignation letter from the DRDO Head Quarters,
New Delhi. Subsequently the plaintiff directed/
demanded the defendant to compensate the Bond
amount of Rs.14,60,592/0 for a period of 4 years.
Even though the said condition to work for a period of
4 years is not incorporated in the Bond at the time of
relieving on 1/7/2010. This defendant also repeatedly
requested with the plaintiff to settle the service
benefits, in which this defendant is legally entitle to
the said benefits such as leave salary, gratuity, GPF
Travelling allowance of Rs.50,000/- etc., and such
other benefits. This defendant submits that, on
reading into the various Clauses of the Bond, no
where it is stated that, he should work for a period of
4 years rather than compensating the bond amount.
This defendant is ready to compensate only in respect
of remaining period of two years in which the plaintiff
18
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
is free and entitle to recover out of his service benefits
available with the plaintiff institution.
The defendant further submits that, after
returning from Indian Institute of Science, the plaintiff
had deducted a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the
defendant towards travelling allowances, which was
granted earlier, for which this defendant did not
disputed, even though this defendant is legally
entitled for the benefit of travelling allowances. Inspite
of brining to the notice with the plaintiff all those
aspects, once again the plaintiff has demanded to
compensate the bond money, for which he requested
to furnish the copy of the bond and settle the service
benefit etc., Again on 12/5/2015, the plaintiff issued
a demand letter to compensate the bond money, for
which this defendant suitably replied and denied the
bond money, since the said fact of working for a
period of 4 years not incorporated in the Bond rather
than compensating. On 30/6/2015, the plaintiff
directed the defendant to surrender CGHS card, ID
Card, Library Card etc., as per the procedure
19
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
prescribed and also directed to pay bond money. For
which the defendant has suitably replied on
31/8/2015 and denied for payment of bond money
and fulfilled the formalities with regard to returning
the ID card and such other cards. The defendant has
also clearly stated in the letter that, no f urther
correspondence shall be made with the plaintiff
matter already came to an end, since from the date of
resignation i.e., from 7/4/2014 to 31/8/2015. It is
submitted that, with due respect and deligence, this
defendant has discharged his duty and followed the
formalities in the matter of submitting his resignation
and surrendering the records and s uch other aspects.
Instea dof plaintiff settling his service benefits, started
dodging the matter by making illegal demands of bond
money. The conduct of the plaintiff clearly goes to
show that, there is a total lapse on the part of the
plaintiff in discharging their obligation with regard to
the acceptance of resignation letter within the
statutory period of 90 days and subsequently shifting
the burden on the defendant and making the illegal
20
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
demand for Bond money in the above suit. As a
matter of fact, the officers of the plaintiff solely with a
view to harass the defendant and also to conflauge the
lapse on the part of the plaintiff officers filed the above
suit agianst the defendant for extraneous reason. The
plaintiff and its officers are the State and
instrumentality of the State and it is an organisation
established by the Ministry of defence, Government of
India, they must always act in a fair and reasonable
manner in discharging their statutory duty. In the
present suit, they filed and neglected to discharge
their obligation cost upon them and consequently
initiating the proceedings against the defendant by
making huge demand, even though he did not
committed any default or whatsoever. The plaintiff
may be put to strict proof of every one of the
statement made in the plaint.
Further, defendant did not completely deny the
averments stated in para no.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 of the plaint
averments. Further denies the averments made in
para no.9 to 20.
21
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
Defendant further submitted that, the plaintiff is
solely with a view to deny the service benefits of the
defendant and with a view to threatening, the above
suit came to be filed. The plaintiff had not approached
this Court in a clean hands and suppressed the
material facts. There is no cause of action arose
against this defendant for seeking the rleief of recovery
of money. The plaintiff has not made out any prima
facie case and the balance of convenience lies against
the plaintiff for grant of any relief. Therefore,
defendant prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary
costs.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the following issues are framed for consideration:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the
defendant has violated the terms of
employment in the bond dated 23/6/2010?
(2) Whether the defendant proves that
execution of bond dated 23/6/2010 is only
formal and does not create any rights and
liabilities in favour of the plaintiff?
(3) Whether the defendant proves that there is
no cause of action to file this suit?
22
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
(4) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as
sought for?
(5) What order or decree?
6. Plaintiff in order to prove its case, the
representative of the plaintiff is examined as PW.1
and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P32 and closed its side of
evidence. On behalf of the defendant, defendant is
examined as DW.1 but no documents are marked and
closed his side of evidence.
7. Heard both sides and perused entire
records of the case.
8. My findings on the above issues are as
under:
Issue No. 1) ............In the affirmative;
Issue No. 2) ............In the negative;
Issue No. 3) ............In the negative;
Issue No. 4) ............In the affirmative;
Issue No. 5) ............As per final order for
the following:
23
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
9. ISSUE NO.1: The defendant is the
Scientist B in DRDO and appointed from 6 th March
2003. In 2010, he was promoted to the post of
Scientist D. For the purpose of higher studies, he was
nominated to Indian Institute of Science for a period
of 2 years at the cost of Government of India. The
condition was that, the defendant will be under
contractual obligation to serve the DRDO for a period
of 4 years after the completion of the course. In this
regard, the defendant executed a bond on 23/6/2010
which is binding upon himself and his heirs,
executors and administrators to pay Rs.14,60,592/-
on account of his having been detailed for training for
a period of 2 years at the cost of government. The
clause no.4 of the bond is very clear in that regard. I
have carefully gone through Ex.P4 which is the bond
for temporary government servants detailed for
training / courses in India executed by Subhankar
Ghose in favour of plaintiff and on behalf of the
President of India. On completion of course, the
defendant joined the duty and later on, on 7/4/2014,
24
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
he submitted his resignation to the post of Scientist
D and also executed other connected supporting
documents. According to the plaintiff, the resignation
of the plaintiff though received by the plaintiff,
defendant has not been relieved from his duty. He
remained unauthorisedly absent from 31/7/2014
without intimation. In this regard, there were several
correspondence in between the plaintiff and defendant
in order to settle the bond amount and to report to the
duty to relieve the defendant from the duties. Even
after the several correspondences the defendant has
not complied with the terms and conditions of Ex.P4.
On the other hand, the contention of the defendant is
that, though bond was executed by the defendant, due
to some personal problems, the defendant gave
resignation and went to his home town. Further, even
after the completion of the training, the defendant has
served the plaintiff for 2 years and he has not violated
the terms of the employment and further the plaintiff
has not settled the service benefits of the defendant,
rather than filed the suit by suppressing the material
25
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
facts. In this regard, PW.1 present before the court
and filed his chief examination and got marked the
documents. In the lengthy cross-examination of the
PW.1, nothing much has been elucidated. Though the
defendant gave preference to the settlement of benefits
from the side of the plaintiff establishment, since the
defendant has already gave his signature, PW.1
contended that, since the defendant has not relieved
from his duty and also not complied with the terms of
Ex.P4, the same can be done only after the
compliance of the terms of the Ex.P4 from the side of
the defendant. The counsel for the defendant
vehemently argued that, even the Ministry of Law and
Justice, Government of India specifically directed the
plaintiff establishment to relieve the defendant, the
plaintiff has not acted as per the directions of higher
officials. However, PW.1 stated that, since the
defendant has not complied with the bond obligations,
the plaintiff establishment has not settled the dues of
the defendant. Further, he has clearly stated that, in
the resignation letter itself (Ex.P6), the defendant
26
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
clearly admitted that, he is ready to clear any bond
obligations, government dues that are pending from
his side and therefore the plaintiff establishment did
not relieved him and settled his dues. The counsel for
the plaintiff while cross-examining DW.1, has clearly
elucidated that, the defendant has violated the terms
of the employment detailed in Ex.P4. DW.1 clearly
admitted that, the Government of India has bear the
amount of Rs.14,60,592/- towards his higher studies,
the execution of the bond in favour of the President of
India and he was used to get the salary even during
the time of his higher studies. In page no.9, para no.2,
DW.1 clearly admitted that, "It is correct to suggest
that, the condition no.4 stated in Ex.P4 is
correct." Further, he deposed that, "It is correct to
suggest that, as per the conditions of Ex.P4, I
have to serve the LRDE for 4 years after the
completion of the 4 years. It is correct to suggest
that I have not served for 4 years. It is correct to
suggest that, inspite of the demands from the
government, I have not paid the bond amount
27
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
mentioned in Ex.P4. Ex.P6 is the letter addressed
by me. It is correct to suggest that in that Ex.P6, I
undertook that, I am willing to clear any bond
obligations, government dues that are pending
from my side."
10. I have carefully gone through all the
documents produced by the plaintiff wherein it is very
clear that, Ex.P4 is the bond executed by defendant
in order to serve the plaintiff establishment for 4 years
or if he fails to do so, ready to refund the amount of
Rs.14,60,592/- to the government. Further, Ex.P6 is
the resignation letter of the defendant, wherein in
para no.4, he clearly admitted that, he is willing to
clear any bond obligations, government dues that are
pending from his side. So, the thing is very clear that,
even DW.1 clearly admitted that, he has executed
Ex.P4, and not acted as per the conditions laid in that
bond. In the further cross-examination of DW.1, a
question was put by the counsel for the plaintiff,
"Even after the repeated demand, and transaction
28
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
from the side of the plaintiff, you have not
fulfilled the conditions in Ex.P4 in repayment of
the bond amount. What do you say?" DW.1
answered that, "I am willing to fulfill all the
obligations set out in Ex.P4." From the above
admissions from the side of DW.1, it is clear that,
nomore discussion is needed in order to show that the
defendant has not acted as per the bond dated
23/6/2010 (Ex.P4). Since DW.1 clearly admitted that,
he is willing to fulfill all obligations and has not
complied with the terms of the same, it is clear that,
plaintiff proved issue no.1 in his favour. Accordingly, I
answer issue no.1 in the affirmative.
11. ISSUE NO.2 AND 3: Two contentions
taken by the defendant that, the execution of the bond
dated 23/6/2010 is only formal and does not create
any rights in favour of the plaintiff and further there
is no cause of action to the plaintiff to file the suit. On
going through the entire records, it is very clear that,
on the basis of the bond dated 23/6/2010, the
29
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
defendant was given higher studies by the government
and In the bond itself, the defendant has clearly
agreed that, the government has paid Rs.14,60,592/-
and if at all the defendant has not completed 4 years
of the service after the expiry of the termination of the
period of training, or any event of removal or dismissal
from the service for any kind of his conduct at any
time within the period of 4 years, after his return to
the duty, he has to refund the government on demand
the aforesaid amount of Rs.14,60,592/-. Nowhere in
the depositions of DW.1, he has stated that, the
execution of the bond is only formal and it does not
create any rights and liabilities in favour of the
plaintiff. Moreover, in the cross-examination itself, he
has clearly stated that the condition no.4 stated in
Ex.P4 is correct. Further, he has also stated that, he
has to serve the plaintiff establishment for 4 years
after the completion of the training. Further, he clearly
admitted that, he has not served for 4 years. More
than that, a clear cut admission from his side that "It
is correct to suggest that inspite of the demand
30
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
from the government, I have not paid the bond
amount mentioned in Ex.P4." So, from the
admissions of the DW.1, it is very clear that, the
execution of the bond (Ex.P4) dated 23/6/2010 is not
formal rather than it contains the duties and
obligations which has to be followed by the defendant
after the completion of his training period. The
admission from the side of the defendant that he has
not fulfilled the rights and liabilities set out in Ex.P4
itself gives the right to the plaintiff to initiate legal
proceedings against the defendant by way of the suit.
12. After the submission of the resignation
letter from the side of the defendant, there were
several correspondence between the plaintiff and
defendant with regard to the settlement of the all the
dues and compliance of all the conditions set out in
Ex.P4 to the government. Several email
correspondences, transactions between the plaintiff
and defendant are clear evidences to show that the
plaintiff has requested the defendant to clear all his
31
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
bond obligations and he is ready to settle any dues
which the defendant is entitled to obtained from the
plaintiff establishment. In this regard, the counsel for
the defendant vehemently argued that once the
defendant has gave his resignation and which was
received by the plaintiff establishment, it is the
plaintiff establishment which has to settle all the dues
which the defendant has to obtain from the
establishment. Further, since the resignation of the
defendant was accepted by the plaintiff establishment,
there is no duty cast upon the defendant to fulfill the
bond obligations. However, the argument put
forwarded by the defendant is not correct because on
the basis of Ex.P4 itself, the defendant consented to
serve the establishment for further 4 years after the
completion of the training. Before the completion of
the 4 years, the defendant has resigned his post for
his personal reasons. Whatever the reasons explained
by the defendant with regard to the non serving of the
plaintiff establishment for 4 years, the defendant is
obliged to fulfill the conditions of Ex.P4. Even in the
32
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
Ex.P4 and Ex.P6, the defendant has clearly admitted
that, he is ready to fulfill all the obligations which are
necessary for the purpose of settlement of dues. The
learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that, though
the resignation is accepted by the plaintiff, the
defendant is not relieved from his service. The same
can be done only after the fulfillment of Ex.P4. The
same version has been reuttered by the PW.1 in the
cross-examination. Even in the notification issued by
the higher officials also, they clearly stated that, the
plaintiff establishment can relieve the defendant after
the fulfillment of the obligations of Ex.P4 from the side
of the defendant. The non-compliance of Ex.P4 itself
gives right to the plaintiff to file this suit which is the
cause of action for the suit. Therefore, I answer issue
no.2 and 3 in the negative.
13. ISSUE NO.4: The suit of the plaintiff is
one for the recovery of Rs.14,60,592/- together with
the interest at the government rate from the
defendant. No doubt, the defendant has every
33
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
obligation to fulfill the conditions of the bond dated
23/6/2010 and same was admitted by him in his
cross-examination. Further, he clearly admitted that,
he is willing to fulfill all the terms and conditions of
Ex.P4. Therefore, it is clear that, the defendant is fully
aware that, he has to obay the terms and condition of
Ex.P4 and only after completion of the same, he can
get the service benefit from the plaintiff establishment.
The admissions from the side of defendant clearly
shows that, plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs.
Accordingly, without much discussions, I answer
issue no.4 in the affirmative.
14. ISSUE NO.5: From my above discussions
and reasoning, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be
decreed. In the result, I pass the following:
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby
decreed.
The plaintiff is entitled to recover
Rs.14,60,592/- together with interest at the
34
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc
rate of 10% per annum from the defendant
the date of this decree till realisation.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
***
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, Script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 18 th day of June 2020.] [PRASHANTHI.G] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
PW.1 S.Prakash
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
DW.1 Subhankar Ghose
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 True copy of appointment order dated 06.03.2003 Ex.P2 True copy of appointment order dated 25.04.2003 Ex.P3 True copy of the order details Ex.P4 Form No.B (original bond) Ex.P5 Resignation letter Ex.P6 Copy of the resignation letter dated 07.04.2014 Ex.P7 True copy of Appendix -B 35 CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc Ex.P8 True copy of checklist for vigilance clearance Ex.P9 True copy of resignation dated 19.09.2014 Ex.P10 True copy of E-mail Ex.P11 The copy of resignation letter dated 08.10.2014 Ex.P12 The resignation letter dated 20.10.2014 Ex.P13 Reply issued by defendant dated 08.10.2014 Ex.P14 Postal cover Ex.P15 True copy of E-mail Ex.P16 Reminder-II dated 03.11.2014 Ex.P17 Reminder-III dated 24.11.2014 Ex.P18 Reminder-III dated 06.12.2014 Ex.P19 Reply to reminder-III dated 24.12.2014 Ex.P20 Reminder IV dated 22.01.2015 Ex.P21 Postal acknowledgement Ex.P22 Reminder V dated 24.02.2015 Ex.P23 Reply to Reminder V dated 22.02.2014 Ex.P24 Reply to reminder-VI dated 12.05.2014 Ex.P25 True copy of Letter issued by LRD dated 09.06.2015 Ex.P26 Reply to Ex.P27 dated 30.06.2015 Ex.P27 Reminder-IX dated 23.07.2015 Ex.P28 Reply to reminder-IX dated 31.08.2015 Ex.P29 Copy of the letter issued by the LRDE 09.10.2015 Ex.P30 Letter issued by Delhi head office dated 02.06.2016 Ex.P31 The authorisation letter Ex.P32 Notification
4. List of the documents marked for the defendants:
NIL.
[PRASHANTHI.G] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
36 CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc 17/3/2020 For Judgment 01/04/2020 For Judgment 22/4/2020 For Judgment 11/5/2020 For Judgment..
CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc 23/5/2020 For Judgment 18/6/2020 For Judgment...
Judgment pronounced in the Open Court....
(Vide separate detailed judgment) The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed.
he plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.14,60,592/- together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the defendant the date of this decree till realisation.
No order as to costs. Draw decree accordingly.
[PRASHANTHI.G] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
3 CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc 9 4 CT0028_O.S._7795_2016_Judgment_.doc 0 fdfdf