DEVESHWAR SINGH Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Satyanarayan Sinha, deceased father of petitioners Deveshwar Singh and Sureshwar Singh, was in the year 1973-74 President of the Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ambikapur. It was alleged that because of his gross negligence the bank suffered a loss of Rs. 15.000/- and, therefore, surcharge proceedings were initiated against him under Sectioa 63 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act. While those proceedings were pending, Satyanarayan Sinha died on 30-9-1977. It appears from the record that his two sons who are the petitioners here were brought on record as his legal representatives. They filed their objection, vide Annexure R-1 dated 26-7-1979. In that objection, they only stated that they are not liable for any act of his late father and, therefore, they be discharged. The enquiry then proceeded further and the Assistant Registrar submitted his report. This report was considered by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bilaspur, who by his order dated 2-11-1981 held that the Society suffered a loss of Rs. 15.000/- on account of the gross negligence of Shri Satyanarayan Sinha inasmuch as he did not supervise maintenance of the vehicle which was used for a considerable period without maintaining any log book. The two sons of late Shri Satyanarayan Sinha (petitioners herein) were made liable for this amount. Against this order, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Board of Revenue. That appeal has been dismissed by order Annexure-C dated 29-3-1982. These two orders have been challenged in this petition.

(2.) It was first contended that the petitioners could not be made liable for any act of their father committed as President of the Co-operative Society and the liability, therefore, could not be fastened on them. This contention is devoid of substance in view of express provision contained in Proviso to Section 63 (2) of the Co-operative Societies Act. That provision is as follows :

(3.) Shri V. S. Sroti, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged that late Shri Satyanarayan Sinha could be made liable only on a finding of gross negligence or misconduct and an absence of any such finding, he could not be made liable. As a proposition of law, the submission is sound. However, from the impugned orders, the gross negligence and misconduct of late Shri Satyanarayan Sinha can easily be inferred. The petitioners have not filed on record the charges on the basis of which enquiry was proceeded against late Shri Sinha. However, the discussion and the findings of the two lower Tribunals clearly show that Shri Sinha failed in his supervisory duty to see that the log book of the vehicle was properly maintained so that pilferage of the vehicle could be prevented. It has, therefore, been rightly inferred that this omission to perform his duty amounts to gross negligence. It is this negligence which has caused loss to the Society. Shri Sinha, therefore, has rightly been held guilty of gross negligence.