K KUMARA SWAMY Vs. COOPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the award dated 4.12.1999, passed by the Sub- Registrar, attached to the Girijan Co-operative Corporation, Visakhapatnam, in A.R.C.No.9/98-99, as confirmed by the Cooperative Tribunal, at Vijayawada, through its order dated 20.8.2002 in O.A.No.164 of 2001. The petitioner is employed as Divisional Manager in Girijan Cooperative Corporation (for short "the Corporation"). During the year 1998, he was posted as Divisional Manager of Girijan Primary Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., Parvathipuram, (for short "the Society"), which is under the direct control and management of the Corporation. The society filed A.R.C.No.9/98-99, before the Deputy Registrar, under Section 62 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act (for short "the Act"), for recovery of a sum of Rs.80,929-85 ps., with interest at 24%, against an employee, by name A.Narayana Rao. It was alleged that the said Narayana Rao, who was in-charge of the purchase of various materials, did not account for the sum, indicated above. The Deputy Registrar issued a notice to the sole defendant in the proceedings, i.e. Narayana Rao. A detailed order was passed, in which he discussed the contentions of the respective parties. However, in the operative portion of the award, dated 4.12.1999, he observed that the petitioner, one S.Gupteswar Rao, Assistant Manager, and Sri J.Satyanarayana Murthy, Senior Accountant, are jointly and severally liable, along with Mr.A.Narayana Rao, for a sum of Rs.90,000/-.

(2.) The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, alleging that he was neither a party to the arbitration proceedings, nor was he issued notice of any allegations. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the award against the petitioner also. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Ms.Usha Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the award passed by the Deputy Registrar, and the judgment rendered by the Tribunal, are not only perverse and illegal, but are contrary to the very basic tenets of adjudication. She contends that when the proceedings were initiated against only one individual, there was absolutely no basis for holding that the petitioner was also liable, that too, without hearing him. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the liability against the petitioner was fixed, on the basis of the material available on record, and even now, the petitioner is not able to disprove the same.