R.S.Garg, J.

1. This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is filed by the Bihar State Co-operative Bank Limited and another being aggrieved by the order dated 31.7.2002 passed in CWJC No. 3170 of 2001 whereunder the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition filed by the writ petitioner and the appellant stands directed to pay to the original petitioner the amounts of three advances, amounting to Rs. 40,000.00 and odd.

2. The writ petitioner Nareshwar Prasad filed a Writ Petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a command against the respondents to make payment of entire amount of leave encashment and a further direction to the original respondents to pay interest on the deducted amount of leave encashment at the market rate from the date of retirement of the petitioner and a declaration in his favour that he is entitled to full amount of leave encashment.

3. The facts leading to the present dispute are that the original writ petitioner was appointed on 11.10.1965 as an Inspecting Officer in the Bihar State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and after serving the Institution for almost 34 years he stood retired on 31.1.2000 from the post of Deputy General Manager (Accounts). According to the petitioner though he was entitled to an amount of Rs. 1,58,443.76 towards leave encashment but to his shock and surprise he found that an amount of Rs. 94,875.65 only have been credited to his account and on his enquiries he was informed that the said amount has been credited in full and final settlement of his leave encashment and, as such a sum of Rs. 63,568.10 was deducted from the aforereferred amount. The writ petitioner thereafter made a representation to the respondents on 15.12.2000 but the respondents did not respond to it. The petitioner thereafter sent a reminder but that was not replied. According to the petitioner, before deducting the amount of Rs. 63,568.10 for any good, bad or indifferent reason neither a notice to show cause was issued to him nor any reason was furnished to him for making such a deduction/cut into his entitlement. The petitioner in the aforereferred premises came to this Court with the prayer that he be held entitled to full amount under leave encashment, the respondents be asked to make full payment with interest from the date the petitioner was entitled to his salary.

4. On notice, the Respondent-Bank (now appellant) submitted its counter and took the plea that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts to the effect that petitioner-respondent stood guarantor in three Overdraft Accounts at Bankipur Branch of the Bank and due to the default of borrowers/original debtors in depositing outstanding dues, the amount has been realised from the petitioner from the leave encashment amount as the petitioner- respondent was a guarantor. It is submitted by the Bank that the overdraft facility was sanctioned on the recommendations of the Branch Manager on his personal responsibility to recover the dues in time and he also undertook that in case of default by the borrower the Manager/Petitioner in his capacity as guarantor can be held personally responsible. It is also the case of the Bank that the petitioner failed to recover the said amount and as the original debtors/ borrowers did not deposit the amount, the Bank was entitled to recover the same from the amounts to which the petitioner was entitled. It is submitted by them that most of the Officers and staff of the Co-operative Bank stood guarantors for the overdraft facilities which could be allowed in favour of their friends/close relatives. Such overdraft facilities are sanctioned on the recommendations of the Branch Manager with his personal responsibility to recover the dues in time and in case he fails to recover the dues in time and in case he fails to recover the amount such person who stands guarantor is to be held personally responsible. According to them, the petitioner stood gua