REVAPPA Vs. GRAMODYOGA YANNE UTPADAKAR SAHAKARI SANGHA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANAGER of the first respondent Gramodyoga Yanne Utpadakar Sahakari Sangha Limited (Sangha for short) at Tikota depot and he was entrusted with the cash and stocks of the said depot. It is alleged that the petitioner has sold the stock entrusted to him contrary to the price fixed under the Notification issued by the competent authority vide Ex. P7 and misappropriated the funds of the said Sangha. The Sangha was constrained to refer the matter to the competent authority to raise a dispute before the second respondent. The second respondent in turn has referred the matter for adjudication to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bijapur under Section 71 (1) (b) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (Act for short ). The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, after conducting the enquiry, has passed the order dated 26th November 1998 dismissing the dispute filed by the Sangha. Feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the Sangha has filed an appeal on the file of the Tribunal in Appeal NO. 59/1999 and the said appeal had come up for hearing on 22nd April 2001. The appeal filed by the Sangha was allowed and the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated 26th November 1998 was set aside and the Sangha was permitted to recover an amount of Rs. 1,05,609. 60 along with interest at the rate of 06% from the petitioner from the date of the order and observed that if the said amount is not recovered from the petitioner, the Sangha shall proceed against the respondents 3 and 4 who are the guarantors to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, as stated supra, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

(2.) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies has passed a well considered order after considering the oral and documentary evidence and the material available on file holding that the Sangha has failed to point out that the domestic enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner and have failed to point out that there is misappropriation of the fund and that the petitioner has sold the oil cakes and allied products for lower prices than those prescribed by the Sangha during the period form 1992 to 1995 resulting in loss of Rs. 1,05,609. 60 and they have kept quiet for three years and thereafter, the proceedings were initiated raising a dispute by the Sangha on the ground that as per the audit report for the year 1992-93 to 1994-95, the misappropriation of the fund has been committed by the petitioner and further, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies has given a specific finding that it gives rumours for initiating the proceedings against the petitioner. Therefore he submits that the petitioner could not be held responsible for the same because of the latches on the part of Sangha. Accordingly, the dispute raised by the first respondent was dismissed. He submits that no error or illegality as such has been committed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. This aspect of the matter has not at all been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while reversing the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Tribunal, without considering the material on record has proceeded to pass the order contrary to the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules holding that the petitioner is liable to pay the said misappropriated amount. The reasoning given by the Tribunal in accepting the case made out by the petitioner is contrary to the material on record and the petitioner has no where admitted and as a matter of fact he has taken a defence that before selling the products, he has consulted the concerned higher authorities over telephone, and then only he has sold the commodities. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner is not at fault. This aspect of the matter has not at all been taken into consideration by the appellate Tribunal. Therefore, the order passed by the appellate authority is illegal and has committed a grave error resulting in substantial mis-carriage of justice. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

(3.) PER contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for second respondent, inter alia, contended and justified the well-considered order passed by the Tribunal. To substantiate his submission, he was quick to point out that there is a specific finding given by the Tribunal to the effect that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was a salesman in charge of the Tikota Depot and also that petitioner himself has admitted that he has sold the commodities at the lower price contrary to the price fixed in the Notification issued by the competent authority and the reasoning given by the Deputy Registrar that the first respondent has failed to initiate the proceedings immediately and waited for three years and it gives doubt about the documentary evidence. The said reasoning given by the Deputy registrar has rightly not been accepted by the Tribunal and the same has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner himself has admitted that he was in-charge of the Tikota depot and he has sold the products for a price lower than the price fixed in the Notification Ex. P7. Therefore he submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any error or illegality. As a matter of fact, the said order has been passed in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act and Rules. Moreover, the petitioner has also not made any good grounds to interfere in the well-considered order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, it is submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.