AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner is challenging the suspension order dated 19 -5 -2003 (Annexure -1 to the Writ Petition). The petitioner was a Secretary of a Co -operative Society and one of his duties was to make recoveries of the money advanced by the society. In the impugned suspension order it has been mentioned that Rs. 20,54,000 is in arrears from the members of the society but the petitioner recovered only a sum of Rs. 59,000. Thus, he recovered only 2.87% of the demand.

(3.) IN our opinion, the case of the petitioner falls within Clause (i) of the above provision because the very fact that the petitioner made recovery of only 2.87% of the demand prima facie indicates that he was in collusion with the loanees. It is so shocking that it leads to a reasonable inference that the petitioner colluded with the persons who took the loans.