been tainted with 'wilful negligence', which has been construed by pronouncements of the Court as meaning something done either by commission or omission, in a deliberate and reprehensible manner, with reckless callousness and with a supine indifference, and not by accident or inadvertence without taking due care and precaution ordinarily expected from a reasonable and prudent man under the existing circumstances. Learned counsel for the appellant took the trouble of citing before us pronouncements of a number of single Judges of this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even in the field of inference, there is no possibility of characterising the alleged acts and omissions on the part of the appellant as tainted with 'wilful negligence'. We would have gone into this question, but we find that the answer given by us with regard to the first contention in favour of the appellant has served his purpose and we are of the view that for the present case we need not trouble ourselves with regard to this aspect. The learned single Judge, we find, has omitted to take note of the crucial aspect with regard to the casting of specific responsibility or duty or obligation on the appellant with regard to remittances and withdrawals. As we have already pointed out, there is no material evidence exposed in this case, showing that position. In the absence of the said position being made out against the appellant, it is not possible to sustain the proceedings which culminated in the mulcting of the liability on the appellant. Taking note of this feature, we are obliged to interfere, in writ appeal and accordingly the writ appeal is allowed, the order of the learned single Judge is set aside and the writ petition W.P.1955 of 1978 is allowed. We
