SHAKUNTALA Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Ganesh Kumar was the Secretary and then President of Co-operative Society named and styled as ''Seva Sahakari Samiti Limited, Shemagarh" Tahsil and District Seoni. Some misappropriation was said to have taken place in that Society and the audit report reflected a fraudulent misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 20,704.80 paise. After some preliminary inquiry, a surcharge case under Section 63 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was initiated against certain persons including Ganesh Kumar. Before, however, the inquiry could be completed, Ganesh Kumar died in the year 1966. The inquiry proceeded and finally a report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer, vide Annexure-A. The Assistant Registrar issued notice to the applicant/petitioner who is the sister of the deceased Ganesh Kumar and sole surviving heir. She appeared through her agent Anandilal and was permitted to represent her case through him. The Assistant Registrar then fixed a date for recording statements of most of the persons to whom the loan was said to have advanced by Ganesh Kumar and who have signed or put their thumb impressions in the account books in token of receipt of loan. Those persons appeared and told the Assistant Registrar that they never borrowed the loan nor signed the account books. Records of the Society were also produced. Then, statement of Anandilal was recorded by the Assistant Registrar who on examination of the entire material before him, held Ganesh Kumar liable for an Amount of Rs. 17,630.50 paise. His order is Annexure-G dated 7-2-1974. Against this order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Board of Revenue. That appeal has been rejected by order dated 24-9-1982 (Annexure-I). The order of the Assistant Registrar has been maintained. It is these two orders (Annexures- G and 1) passed by the Assistant Registrar and by the Board of Revenue that are questioned in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Shri A. K. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, first submitted that the Assistant Registrar's order is vitiated because of want of opportunity to defend the cause. It is submitted that since the matter was of quasi-civil and quasi-criminal nature and that the authority, the Assistant Register was exercising was quasi-judicial authority and also because the result of the inquiry exposed the petitioner to that liability, the petitioner should have been given sufficient opportunity to defend. What we find from the order of the Board of Revenue is that the want of opportunity was complained only at the hearing before the Assistant Registrar. However, we permitted the learned counsel to make submissions in relation to want of opportunity before the Enquiry Officer as well. We, however, find from records that on both the occasions, the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to defend. Annexure R-3 is the document incorporating certain order-sheets before the Enquiry Officer. A notice by the Enquiry Officer was issued to the petitioner when Enquiry Officer learnt that Ganesh Kumar had died. Instead of appearing before the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner sent her reply through her counsel. Thereafter, the inquiry proceeded but the petitioner did not attend the inquiry and now, therefore, cannot be heard to say that no sullicient opportunity was afforded to her by the Enquiry Officer. Not even this, the finding of the Board of Revenue clearly indicates that the Assistant Registrar issued a registered notice to the petitioner for her appearance before him. Proceedings also show that Anaudilal, the petitioner's agent, did appear before the Assistant Registrar and his statement was recorded. It will, therefore, be difficult to say that the petitioner was not given opportunity to defend the cause. Instead, the finding of the Board of Revenue is that the complaint of want of opportunity is not sound and must be rejected.

(3.) It was then argued that the liability must be fastened on the other persons including the Secretary of the Society at the relevant time. It is true that those persons have been exonerated after the inquiry. However, we cannot hear anything against them and the petitioner cannot be heard to say that the liability be fastened also upon them because none of them has been joined as a party in this petition and naturally, therefore, no adverse order can be made against them.