P R MOHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is an erstwhile Typist of the 5th respondent-Bank. On receiving information regarding serious financial irregularities in the Bank, an enquiry was ordered under Section 65 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act (for short 'the Act'). That enquiry was conducted by the Joint registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Kollam. In that enquiry, the Joint Registrar came to the conclusion that the petitioner was responsible for misappropriation of money from the Bank. Ext. P1 is the report filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 65 of the Act. Based on the same, the 3rd respondent conducted an enquiry under Section 68(1) of the Act. When this enquiry was under progress, the petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P.No. 8068/1986 in which this Court directed the enquiry officer to permit the petitioner to avail the services of a helper in the enquiry. Accordingly, the enquiry under Section 68(1) was continued after giving the petitioner an opportunity to participate in the enquiry with the assistance of a helper. After the enquiry, Ext.P2 report was filed by the 3rd respondent in which he found that the petitioner and two others namely, M/s. V. John Panicker, Secretary of the Bank, and V. Sanathanan Pillai, Senior Supervisor were jointly and severally liable to make good the amounts misappropriated from the Bank. On the basis of Ext. P2 report, Ext. P3 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Act for imposition of surcharge on the petitioner. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 explanation to the said show cause notice, which did not find favour with the 2nd respondent who, by Ext. P5 order, held that going by the evidence available, the petitioner alone received the money misappropriated and as far as the others are concerned, they could only be accused of dereliction of duty. On that finding, the petitioner was directed to pay a total amount of Rs. 2,02,451.90 being the amount misappropriated and interest in respect of the amounts misappropriated by the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent- Government which was also rejected by Ext. P8 order. The petitioner is challenging Exts. P2 and P8 orders in this original petition.

(2.) The petitioner raises several contentions. The first is that under Section 65 of the Act, the Joint Registrar had no power to find that any particular person has misappropriated any money or that that particular person is liable for any money misappropriated by him, but he can only conduct an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of the Bank. He therefore submits that Ext. P1 enquiry report, which is the basis of Exts. P2 and P9 is totally unsustainable and consequently, Exts. P2 and P9 also.

(3.) The relevant provision is Section 65. Section 65(1) reads as under: