R.S. Mongia, C.J.
1. For alleged acts of omission and commission on the part of the respondent-writ petitioner, the appellant bank had allegedly sustained pecuniary loss of Rs. 4,96,080.90, A departmental enquiry was held against the writ petitioner and ultimately by the order dated 5.7.1996 of the disciplinary authority the writ petitioner was dismissed from service. The provident fund of the Writ petitioner was transferred to his savings bank account, which the writ petitioner had in the same bank, where he was working. The authorities in the bank imposed a ban on the right of the writ petitioner to withdraw money from his personal savings bank account, which account included the money received from the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. The imposition of ban or restriction on the writ petitioner to operate his saving bank account led him to file W.P. (C) No. (C.R.) 420/97 in this Court. That writ petition has been allowed by the judgment and order dated 15.6.2001 primarily on the ground that the writ petitioner had the account in the bank as a customer and no ban or restriction could be imposed by the authorities to operate that account.
2. This has led that bank to file the present writ appeal.
3. Regulation 30 of the Langpi Dehangi Rural Bank Staff Service Regulations is in the following terms :
'30(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of other regulations, an officer or employee who commits a breach of these regulations or who displays negligence, inefficiency or inobedience, or who knowingly does anything detrimental to the interests of the Bank or in conflict with its instructions or who commits a breach of discipline or is guilty of any other act of misconduct, shall be liable to the following penalties :
(a) Reprimand.
(b) Delay or stoppage of Increments or promotion.
(c) Degradation to a lower post or grade or to a lower stage in his incremental scale.
(d) Recovery form the pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by the officer or employee.
(e) Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employement.
(f) Dismissal.'
4. It would be seen that one of the punishments which could be awarded against a delinquent official is recovery from the pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by the delinquent officer or employee. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that since the bank had suffered a huge loss because of the acts of omission and commission of the writ petitioner-respondent, it was for recovering that loss that restriction had been imposed on the operation of the bank account by the writ petitioner-respondent.
5. We have perused the order of punishment dated 5th July, 1996. That order is simple order of dismissal from service and there is no order of imposing punishment of recovery of any pecuniary loss. That being so, the question of the appellant-bank imposing any restriction on the operation of the account of the writ petitioner-respondent did not arise (assuming for the sake of argument that the bank can put such a restriction). Since nothing is to be recovered from the writ petitioner-respondent by the appellant-bank as no punishment of recovery of any pecuniary loss has been imposed, we are of the view that restriction could not have been imposed on the writ petitioner respondent from operating his account. Consequently, we uphold the judgment of the learned Single Judge, though on different grounds, and dismiss the Writ Appeal.