JACOB CHERIAN, KOITHARA PUTHEN VEEDU Vs. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a salesman under the 3rd respondent-Attuvathala Service Co-operative Bank Limited. On 30.6.1998, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies ordered an enquiry under Section 65 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 ('the Act' for short) through the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kuttanad. Assistant Registrar submitted his report on 25.09.1999, wherein serious irregularities were found in the functioning of the Bank, which caused huge financial loss. Based on this report inquiry was ordered Section 68 (1) of the Act, as per order dated 29.1.2001 of the Joint Registrar and the Assistant Registrar furnished his report on 31.5.2005. Notices were accordingly issued to those found responsible, including the petitioner who was working as a salesman at the relevant time. As per Ext.P2 notice issued under Section 66(5) of the Act, the loss caused by the petitioner was mainly towards the shortage of goods in Maveli store while he was working as salesman and the amount found in the audit certificate for 1994-95 towards shortage of fertilizers and pesticides. Petitioner was thus found liable for the loss to the tune of Rs. 53,901/- and was directed to show cause against realisation of the same under Section 68. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6 reply before the Joint Registrar, stating that he was given charge of the fertilizers and pesticides' unit only on 1.07.1997 as per Ext.P3 resolution of the Bank dated 08.08.1997. He relied on Ext.P4 resolution dated 29.1.1986 by which the Bank had decided to sell the goods of poor quality by way of reduction sale, after taking a decision in presence of concurrent auditor and Ext.P5 minutes of the general body meeting on 19.06.1987 which refers to the reply given therein that shortage in trading account of Maveli store was caused by the poor quality of goods, pestering by rats and the reduction sale held. He stated that he was not responsible for the shortage or the loss caused to the Bank and that therefore the amount referred to in Ext.P2 notice was not liable to be realised from him. According to him, he was put in charge of the fertilisers and insecticides' unit only on 01.07.1997 as per resolution No. 123 dated 8.8.1997. The petitioner submitted another representation before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society on 06.09.2005 again saying that he was not responsible for the loss alleged to have been caused in Ext.P2 notice. Thereafter, by Ext.P1 dated 03.01.2007, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued surcharge proceedings under Section 68(2) of the Act allowing the Bank to recover a sum of Rs. 10433.60/- towards shortage of stock in Maveli store and another sum of Rs. 6406.15/- as per audit certificate from the assets of the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner filed Ext.P9 appeal before the Government. Government after hearing the petitioner as well as the Bank and Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies passed Ext.P10 order, rejecting the appeal. The petitioner had in the appeal stated that he was not responsible for the loss caused to the Society and that the loss if at all caused was not due to his negligence. The Government in Ext.P10 found that in the enquiry under Sections 65 and 68, it was found that petitioner was not vigilant in discharging his duties. The Bank had stated before the Appellate Authority that he was given charge of the Manure Depot as per resolution dated 2.2.1982 and 24.2.1984 and the charge of the Maveli Store was also entrusted to him. According to the Society, there is a deficit of stock amounting to Rs. 10,433.60 in the Maveli Store during period of 1984-85 and 85-86 and the same was liable to be recovered from the appellant. Government rejected contention raised by the petitioner and found that the loss was seen during his period as salesman in Maveli Store. Stating that that petitioner was accused of similar charges earlier also when the Board of Directors had decided to realise the loss from him and observing that it was necessary to refer the service records also, Govt. rejected the appeal. Petitioner is challenging the surcharge proceedings and the order of Govt. contending that he was not in charge of the units at the relevant time when shortage occurred and that his contentions were not considered properly.

(3.) The Government has filed counter affidavit stating that the proceedings which culminated in Ext.P1 was surcharge proceedings initiated in accordance with law seeing that the petitioner was liable for stock deficit of a sum of Rs. 10,433.60/- for the period from 1984 to 1987 and the manure stock deficit to Rs. 6406.15/- for the year 1994-95. It is stated that the petitioner who was in charge of the manure depot as well as the Maveli store was liable to make payment as directed in Ext.P1 and thereby to make good the loss caused to the society.