SHIVANANJAPPA Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the petitioner has called in question the validity of the order at Annexure 'D' dated 9.2.2010 whereby the first respondent has granted sanction to prosecute the petitioner under sub-section (2) of Section 111 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. The petitioner was the Secretary of the Taluk Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, Chamarajanagar Taluk from the year 1991-1992 till 31.12.2000. He was originally appointed as an Inspector of Co-operative Societies. He was promoted as Senior Inspector. Thereafter, he was further promoted as Co-operative Development Officer. He retired from service on 31.8.2006 on attaining the age of superannuation.

(2.) An enquiry was initiated under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act') into the affairs of the third respondent Society. During the course of enquiry, it was found that the petitioner had committed various irregularities and his liability was determined at Rs. 24,13,932.13 ps. On submission of the report under Section 64, an order was passed under Section 68 on the basis of which third respondent initiated surcharge proceedings under Section 69, which is pending before the first respondent. The third respondent sought permission to prosecute the petitioner by his communication dated 12.10.2009. On the basis of the said communication, a show cause notice was issued by the first respondent dated 20.10.2009 calling upon the petitioner as to why the sanction should not be granted. The petitioner has sent the reply dated 19.12.2009 opposing the grant of sanction. As stated above, the first respondent has given sanction to prosecute the petitioner as per Annexure 'D', which is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has made two fold submissions. Firstly, he submits that after holding an enquiry under Section 64, a report was submitted to the competent authority under Section 68 of the Act. This was followed by surcharge proceedings under Section 69(1). Before conclusion of the proceedings under Section 69(1), prosecuting the petitioner is not permissible in law. Secondly, it is contended that the sanction cannot be given without granting the person concerned an opportunity to represent his case. Though the petitioner has sent the reply to the show cause notice, the same has not been considered by the first respondent. It is argued that before the grant of sanction, the second respondent has not recorded a finding as to whether petitioner has acted in good faith or not.