DISTRICT CO OP CENTRAL BANK Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved of the orders dated 26.2.1998 passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rewa in appeal case no. 77-97/97 the petitioner bank has preferred this revision.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this revision are that the non-applicant No. 2 was an employee of the petitioner bank. He was appointed as Samiti Sewak on 24.1.1976. On serious charges of mis-conduct and defalcation of an amount of more than Rs.16,000/-, domestic enquiry was held against the non applicant No. 2 and after considering the report of the enquiry officer and after hearing the non-applicant No. 2 in response to the final show cause notice, he was removed from the services as per order dated 13.2.1989. Non applicant No. 2 challenged this order by filing a dispute case No. 10/89 under section 55 (2) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, for short hereinafter referred to as Act, before the Asstt. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rewa, who after recording evidence of both parties had allowed the dispute case as per order dated 23.11.1995 and set aside the removal order. Revision was preferred by the petitioner bank before the Joint Registrar, Rewa, who as per order dated 23.8.1996 remanded back the matter to the Asstt Registrar. On receipt of the matter after remand the Asstt Registrar again passed his order on 13.7.1997 thereby directing reinstatement of the Non-applicant No. 2 and finding him guilty of the charge of defalcation. For this he imposed punishment on the non-applicant No. 2 with stoppage of two annual grade increment and directed recovery of short fall of the amount from his pay. Bank again preferred the appeal against this order of the Asstt Registrar before the Joint Registrar, who by his impugned order has dismissed the same and thus now the petitioner bank again filed this revision challenging the correctness and legality of the orders of the courts below on the ground that the charges of misconduct were fully found proved against the non-applicant No. 2. Enquiry against him was also conducted according to service rules. Non-applicant No. 2 was afforded full opportunity of hearing and defending himself. After considering the matter in its entirety the petitioner bank had removed him from the services and this removal order of the disciplinary authority could not have been interfered with by the learned courts below.

(3.) I have also perused the record of the courts below. From the perusal of the record of the Asstt Registrar and on the basis of evidence of the parties, it is found proved that the non applicant No. 2 was charge sheeted for three articles of charges for short fall of cash balance and stock of fertilisers to the tune of Rs.16,926.95. At the time of handing over the charge, as per cash book, there was a balance of Rs.16,756.30. But the non applicant No. 2 did not hand over the charge of Rs.13,215.20 to his successor. At the same time he did not deposit the cost of gunny bags of Rs.1,344/-. There was short fall of fertilizers of Rs.2,367.67. During the course of enquiry the non applicant No. 2 in his statement before the enquiry officer had also admitted that shortfall. In reply to the show cause notice he also admitted the short fall, but at the same time he came forward with the story that he was not guilty of defalcation and he has been made escapegoat by conspiring of some person. He could not also name any person conspiracy against him. In this way during the enquiry there was clear admission of the non applicant No. 2 about the shortfall. Learned Asstt Registrar has also recorded the finding to this effect. But in his impugned order he observed that the non applicant No. 2 has deposited the amount of shortfall in the year 97 and now there only remains Rs. 2,368/- as outstanding against the non applicant No. 2. For this amount he had directed recovery from the pay of the non applicant No. 2. Amount of shortfall related to the period of 88-89. Thus it has clearly been established on the basis of enquiry report and also on the basis of the statement of enquiry officer, who has been examined by the petitioner before the Asstt Registrar that the non applicant No. 2 has committed mis appropriation of more than Rs.16,000/- during his tenure as samiti sewak. If he deposited this amount after about 8 years, this deposit will not save his liability and his misconduct can not be dis-proved by such subsequent deposit after about 8 years. On the date of impugned order of the Asstt Registrar, even according to him an amount of Rs.2,368/- which was still outstanding against the respondent. In this way serious charge of mis-appropriation of funds of the society was fully found proved against the non applicant No. 2.