1.      This Revision Petition No. 764 of 2022 contests the order of the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad ('State Commission') on 18.04.2022 allowing the First Appeal No. 512 of 2019 filed against the decision of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Hyderabad ('District Forum') dated 27.08.2019. In the said decision, the District Forum dismissed the Complaint lodged by the Respondent/Complainant.

2.      For convenience, the parties in this case are referred to by their positions in the Consumer Complaint before the District Forum. R. Venkateswara Rao is referred as the 'Complainant'. The Senior Branch Manager of Vijaya Bank is denoted as 'OP-1', and the Deputy General Manager, who is the Disciplinary Authority is OP-2.

3.      Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that he was an employee and customer of the OP-1 Bank and maintained an Overdraft (OD)/Current account since June 2007. The account was initially opened as OD account with a limit of Rs.2,00,000/-, which was later enhanced to Rs.3,50,000/- in 2009. Subsequently, the OD amount was repaid, and the limit was canceled in 2017. Thereafter, the Account continued as a Current Account.

4.      The complaint pertains to a debit transaction of Rs.75,000/- on 16.05.2016, which was processed through his account without prior information or authority. During his tenure as the Manager of the Mylanahalli Branch of OP-1 from 11.08.2011 to 12.07.2014, cash remittances were carried out through known and reliable taxi providers, and he never used his car for this activity. However, objections were raised in the annual audit report, prompting the Regional Manager to recommend an investigation. Subsequently, an investigation was conducted, resulting in the filing of a charge sheet dated 13.08.2015. OP-2, acting as the Disciplinary Authority ordered a penalty of the recovery of the loss caused to the respondent Bank.  Feeling aggrieved, he filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum, seeking return of the unauthorized deduction of Rs.75,000/- from his Current account and compensation for the deficiency.

Top of Form

5.      In reply, OP- and 2 contended that the deduction of Rs.75,000/- from the Complainant's account was in accordance with Disciplinary proceedings initiated against him as an ex-staff member. There is no deficiency of service on their part. They asserted that being covered under the Discipline and Appeal Regulations 1981, the Complainant is not considered a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The deduction is part of the disciplinary action taken against him during his employment with the bank. As an ex-employee of the bank, he does not fit within the definition of a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with respect to the transaction in question. The staff OD was extended to the Complainant while he was in their service as part of the terms and conditions of service, and following a detailed Departmental Inquiry into his misconduct, it was found that Rs.75,000/- was illegally enriched by the Complainant. Therefore, as a sequel to disciplinary proceedings, the Bank/OPs are legally entitled to debit the amount from the staff OD account, albeit after communicating the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. They sought dismissal of the complaint.

6.      The District Forum vide order dated 27.08.2019 dismissed the Complaint with the following observations:

“5. The Points that arise for consideration are:

1. Have the opposite parties been deficient in service and negligent in deducting the amount of Rs. 75,000/- as per the charge sheet filed by them and the pecuniary loss to be duly recovered by them?

2. If yes, is the complainant entitled to the compensation and reliefs he seeks?

3. To what reliefs?

6. POINT NO.1:-

It is the complainant's case that he was an Officer/Employee of the opposite party Bank. He was having an Overdraft/ Current account with them since June 2007. The Overdraft amount was paid back by him and the limit was cancelled in 2017. While he was working as Manager of the opposite party No.1 Bank, several cash remittances were carried out by using a reliable taxi provider. The bill pertaining to this was processed and payment was disbursed by the cashier. He claims he never used his personal car for these cash remittances and transport costs. An objection was raised in the annual audit report of the Bank and subsequently an investigation report was submitted stating that he has used his own car for cash remittances.

  Based on the report a charge sheet was filed and the opposite party No.2 awarded penalties for breach of conduct regulation. The recovery of expenses incurred cannot be recovered from officers, as they are protected by indemnity granted by Government of India. He has filed the compliant for the unauthorized recovery of Rs.75,000/- from his Current account. The Disciplinary Authority is not justified to recover the amount from a deposit account of this complainant.

  In support of this he has filed Ex.A1 - the Statement of Account 09-05-2016 to 31-05-2016. On 16-05-2016 an amount of Rs.75,000/- was debited to his document as per PER/IRD/VIG/BGL/N/1056/2016/DT06/05/16.

  Ex A2 - is a letter addressed by the complainant to the Senior Branch Manager on 18-06-2018 stating that the debit transaction was not Authorized by him and he requests refund of this amount (Rs.75,000) along with interest from 16-05-2016 till realization. This letter was received by the Opposite party No.1 Bank.

  Ex. A3 - is a reply to the above letter and is dated 22-06-2018. They state that for implementation of punishment, they do not require his Authorization.

  Ex. A4 - is a copy of the Disciplinary proceedings against the complainant and is dated 06-05-2016. This issue and the acts of misconduct are not in dispute. As per this exhibit an amount of Rs.75,000/- was to be recovered from the complainant's pay or from any other amount payable to him.

  Ex. A5 - is a copy of the Inter Office Memo stating that the closed cover has been handed over to the complainant on 21-05- 2016.

 Ex. A6 - is the Overdraft Agreement and Memorandum of Agreement. A perusal of this document under clause (2) reads as follows:- "The borrower further agrees that if at any time the bank apprehends or has reason to believe that the borrower has violated or is violating the said undertaking, the bank shall have the right to recall the amount then due to the Bank under or in respect of the said account or any part thereof at once, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein or in any other agreement or document whatsoever".

And

10 (3) "The borrower/s further agree/s and authorizes the Bank to appropriate all the moneys received/realized towards any of the several debts due by him/her/them in order of time whether they are or they are not barred by the law in force for the time being as to the limitation of suits and if debts are of barred by equal standing to appropriate moneys received/ realized in discharge of each proportionately".

Reveals that the said transaction was done in compliance of the final order of the penalty imposed by the Discipline Authority and adhering to the agreement discussed above.

 The opposite parties in their evidence have deposed that exercising the powers in terms of the provisions vide regulations 4(1) and the enforcement of the penalty imposed cannot be termed as deficiency in service. The complainant, in the present case does not fall under the definition of complainant under the C. P. Act 1986, and his claim is totally misconceived.

  As per the final proceedings, (Discipline and Appeal) the complainant preferred Appeal before the Appellate Authority and punishment imposed and subsequently was modified and an amount of Rs.75,000/- was to be recovered by the Bank. Since the complainant has not remitted this amount to the Bank, they have been constrained to debit the amount from the staff OD account maintained at Hardikarbagh Branch. The complainant has not chosen to agitate before the Appellate Authority and the relations between the Bank and the complainant is that of Employer and Employee. They support their defense by filing;

  Ex. B1-Vijaya Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1981.

  The complainant has not sufficiently supported his claim by stating that he complied with the penalties imposed and had settled the dues imposed on him. As per Exhibit A4 an amount of Rs. 75,000/- was to be recovered from his pay or any other amount payable to him. Obviously he did not comply and the opposite parties have recovered this from his OD account based on the clauses in the Overdraft agreement discussed in Exhibit A6.

  Since the scope of the Disciplinary proceedings purely fall under the purview of service jurisprudence, the question of pleading deficiency in service cannot be countenanced and hence the complaint of the complainant is rejected. This point is accordingly answered.

7. POINT NO.2:-

  The complainant, retired on 31-05-2018. The first charge sheet against the lapses committed by him was issued on 13-08-2015. The Disciplinary Authority of the Bank awarded the staff with the punishment of "reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year with cumulative effect along with recovery of Rs.75,000/- vide order dated 06-05-2016". The Ex-staff/complainant preferred Appeal before the Appellate Authority and punishment was modified to "reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of six months with cumulative effect along with recovery from his pay of amount of Rs. 75,000/- order dated 21-03-2018". The opposite parties have filed Exhibits B2, B3 and B4, in support of their defense.

  Ex. B5 is memorandum of writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, dated 28-12-2018 pending disposal. This amounts to subjudice.

  In view of the reasoning and conclusion arrived in point No.1, the complaint has no standing and cannot be considered favorably.

8. POINT NO.3:-

  Since the recovery of pecuniary loss has been decided by the Discipline Authority, the complainant is bound by the proceedings and this Forum finds no deficiency in service in the instant case. Therefore the complaint is dismissed with no costs.

  In the result, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed. No costs.”

7.      On Appeal, the State Commission, vide the impugned order dated 18.04.2022 set aside the order passed by the District Forum with reasons as below:

 “(07). Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether there is customer and banker relationship between the complainant and Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the sanction of amount into the overdraft account of the complainant and unilateral withdrawal of the same towards penalty in connection with a disciplinary proceedings is legally valid or permissible?

3. Whether the order of the Commission below is sustainable under Law?

4. To what relief?

  Nobody is examined and document is marked before this Commission; Heard the arguments of both sides and they have also filed a respective written arguments; Basing on the pleadings and evidence available on the record, the above points are answered like here under:

(08). Point Nos. 1.2 & 3

  For the sake of convenience and in order to avoid repetition the parties are addressed as they arrayed in the complaint;

(09).    Admittedly, the Vijaya Bank; complainant worked as Manager in the However, he was given overdraft/current account facility since 2007. The account stands in the individual name of the complainant and quite unconnected to his official designation; Any amounts credited to the said account are to be utilized by the complainant for his personal requirements and nothing is placed before the commission to show that the amount lying in the overdraft account, shall be used for the Bank purposes only. It means, the complainant alone can utilize the amounts as per his choice: Therefore, there is a customer and banker relationship between the complainant and opposite parties as far as the personal accounts of the complainant are concerned which are with the opposite party bank.

(10). Admittedly, alleging unauthorised cash remittances by the complainant during the period 11.08.2011 to 12.07.2014 an enquiry was initiated, he was found fault with and after completion of enquiry he was imposed with a penalty of Rs.75,000/-; Admittedly, the complainant preferred Writ against the orders of the enquiry officer and it is still pending. In other words, the enquiry proceedings not culminated to a finality. While matters stood thus, in order to recover the penalty of Rs.75,000/- the opposite parties without asking and without giving any intimation to the complainant, sanctioned overdraft facility of Rs.75,000/- to his account and withdrawn, same to the penalty and appropriated to the amount towards the penalty. The complainant is questioning, this unauthorised and illegal act of the opposite parties;

(11).    It is known to one and all that every bank has lien over the amounts lying in the accounts of the customer to recover it's dues however, in the case on hand, penalty imposed by a disciplinary authority cannot be equated with the amounts due to the bank. No bank or to that matter any financial institution or anybody is not authorised to sanction a loan to the customer without his asking and thereafter, withdraw the said loan amount towards the penalty. It is important to note that, huge rate of interest will be charged for the amount given towards overdraft facility. The customer is liable to pay such interest; In the case on hand, the complainant is liable to pay the interest on Rs. 75,000/- which was credited to his overdraft account without his asking, only due to the unauthorized action of the opposite parties. No reason is forthcoming why the complainant will be as saddled with the interest on Rs.75,000/-;

(12). The Appellant counsel basing on the terms and conditions of Ex.A6 overdraft agreement in Para Nos.2 & 3 at Page No.2 argued that the Bank is having a lien; A close look at those terms and conditions, it is very clear that, no authorisation was given to the bank to sanction overdraft facility without asking of a customer and to appropriate the amount, towards penalty imposed by a disciplinary authority. So, the terms and conditions of Ex.A6 are no way helpful to the opposite parties or clothe with any power to sanction amount without asking and to appropriate the same towards penalty; This is only the short question for consideration in this appeal.

(13). The complainant counsel relied upon the following citation reported in:

AIR (2003) Madras 59, Madras High Court; (D) Presidency Towns Insolvency Act (3 of 1909), S.9 (2) - Adjudicating person as insolvent - Issuance of notice - Condition precedent - Notice issued for non-payment of penalty imposed under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act Order imposing penalty, however, had not become final as appeal against it was pending before High Court - Notice, held, not valid.

  The complainant also submitted the Central Govt Act relied to Section 45 ZB was in Banking Regulation Act, 1949;

Notice of claims of other persons regarding deposits Notice receivable. No notice of the claim of any person, other than the person or persons in whose name a deposit is held by a banking company, shall be receivable by the banking company, nor shall the  banking company be bound by and such notice though bank expressly given to it; Provided that where any decree, order, certificate or other authority from a court of competent jurisdiction relating to such deposit is produced before a banking company, the deposing company shall take due note of such decree, order, certificate or other authority.

(14). The Forum below without taking into consideration, the entitlement of the opposite parties to sanction a loan or overdraft facility, without asking of the complainant, and the authority of the opposite parties to recover the same towards penalty passed the impugned order, as such it is liable to be set aside. For the reasons better known to the opposite parties, no provision / rule supporting their contention is placed. So, all the points are answered against the appellant.

(15). Point No.4:

  In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency of service as a compensation and the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.75,000/- to the complainant overdraft facility account including any accrued interest thereon thereby closed this said account.

  Time for compliance 30 days from the date of receipt of order.”

8.      The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/OP-Bank reiterated the key points outlined in the Revision Petition and emphasized that the Respondent/Complainant's status as an employee of the bank meant that his relationship with the bank was governed by the Contract of Service, not falling under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. He argued that the Complainant's actions in indulging into illegal enrichment of Rs.75,000 while in the service of the OP bank with OP Bank funds entrusted to him. OP Bank conducted a detailed departmental inquiry into gross misconduct as an employee and he was held culpable. After due consideration of the Inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority of the OP Bank imposed penalty of recovery of the funds misappropriated, in accordance with the provisions outlined in Regulation 4(f) of Vijaya Bank employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations. Implementation of the orders of Disciplinary Authority in accordance with the procedure laid down against the Complainant cannot not be construed as deficiency in service, particularly considering that he does not fall within definition of a consumer.

9.      The Complainant/Respondent, appearing in person argued in support of the impugned order issued by the State Commission and contended that his relationship with the Petitioner Bank was not solely governed by the Contract of Service but also encompassed a Banker-Customer Relationship. He had held a Current Account No. 401208101000027 with the OP Bank, through which he availed OD facilities. He further argued that the unilateral deduction of Rs. 75,000 from his account on 16.05.2016, without prior authority, constituted a clear instance of deficiency in service on the part of the bank. He asserted unauthorized nature of the transaction, highlighting its arbitrary nature and lack of consent. He sought dismissal of Revision Petition.

10.    Heard the Learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the entire material on record inter-alia Orders of both the fora.

11.    The central issue to be determined is whether the dispute concerning deduction of Rs.75,000 from the Complainant’s account, as per the order issued by the Disciplinary Authority of the Petitioner Bank, falls within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act? 

12.    Adverting to the issue, the definition of the term ‘Consumer’ as contained in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act of 1986 and now repealed by Section 2 (7) (i) & (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reads:

(7) "consumer" means any person who—

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,—

(a) the expression "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;

(b) the expressions "buys any goods" and "hires or avails any services" includes offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing;                           (Emphasis supplied)

13.    The transaction between the parties pertains to accusation of violations of banking procedures and obtaining certain pecuniary entitlements of the Bank staff wherein the Complainant, as Manager of the Branch of the said OP Bank, is alleged to have improperly enriched himself by withdrawing Rs.75,000/- by misrepresenting certain facts with respect to his travel and another expenses. It is uncontested position that, after this matter came to light, the Competent Authority at OP Bank caused Departmental Inquiry into the matter. The Departmental Inquiry has held the Complainant to be blameworthy on certain charges. Incidentally, the Complainant had also not denied the fact of obtaining for himself Rs.75,000 and, however, asserted that he is entitled for the same. The Disciplinary Authority considered the charges against the Complainant, the Inquiry Report as well as his defence and held the Complainant culpable for the charges and imposed a penalty of recovery of Rs.75,000/-. In compliance of the order of Appellate Authority and after following the procedures laid down, the OP bank had recovered the amount appropriated by the Complainant.

14.    It is undisputed that the Complainant was an employee of the OP Bank and the transaction pertains to his service and duties with OP Bank. It is also undisputed that the amount deducted from his account was in terms of the order passed by Disciplinary Authority of the Petitioner Bank, after being held culpable by a duly constituted Inquiry. It is also undisputed that the Consumer Fora is not an Appellant Authority of the Disciplinary Authority of the OP Bank. Based on the above, the grievance as regards the deduction of Rs.75,000 from his account, as per the order of Disciplinary Authority of the Petitioner Bank does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. As the Complainant was an employee of the Petitioner Bank and the deduction was made based of the terms and conditions of service of the Complainant with the OP Bank and the orders of Disciplinary Authority of the OP Bank, his grievance in this regard is liable to be addressed as per procedures laid down within the Bank through an appeal to the Appellate Authority or appropriate judicial forum. Therefore, the present dispute does not come within the jurisdiction of Consumer Fora. Consequently, the impugned order of the State Commission cannot be sustainable.

15.    In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated 18.04.2022 passed by the State Commission in First Appeal No.512 of 2019 is set aside and the order dated 27.08.2019 passed by the District Forum in Consumer Case No.307 of 2018 is upheld.

16.    Consequently, the Revision Petition No.764 of 2022 is allowed. The Complainant is at liberty to progress his grievance before the appropriate fora/ Court.

17.    There shall be no order as to costs. All pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.