STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS Vs. SOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sohan Singh was working as Inspector, Co-operative Societies and was appointed as an Administrator of Bhattian Jadid Co-operative Agricultural Service Society, Bhattian in July/August, 1978. He was required to supervise the work for a period of three months and make arrangement for election of the new Managing Committee. During his tenure as an Administrator, Society enrolled some members and they were also advanced some loans. Three of them did not repay the loan. Subsequently, respondent-plaintiff was promoted as Inspector and posted in the office of defendant No. 3, i.e., Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ludhiana. The Society passed a resolution for making reference for arbitration against the respondent-plaintiff and Hari Singh Inspector was appointed as Arbitrator. It is alleged that illegal ex-parte award was procured against the respondent-plaintiff, though there was no dispute under Sections 55/56 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act between the respondent-plaintiff and the Society. Respondent-plaintiff was also placed under suspension w.e.f. 6.6.1979 and enquiry was instituted against him. He accordingly filed a suit saying that the institution of enquiry was wrong, illegal, without jurisdiction, specially so in the background that the arbitration proceedings had already been held against him. Prayer was also made for restraining the appellants to enforce the ex-parte award and from holding the enquiry.

(2.) The appellants contested the suit challenging the jurisdiction of the court to try the same. Pleas of bar of limitation and mis-joinder of causes of action were also made, besides raising the plea of estoppel. Factual position was admitted in regard to the appointment of the respondent-plaintiff as Administrator of the Society. Allegation was that the respondent-plaintiff had enrolled three bogus members and had advanced loans to them while acting as Administrator. Total amount of loan advanced was Rs. 12,416/-. It was stated that this amount stood embezzled. The appellants had also conceded that the arbitration reference was held against the respondent-plaintiff and also the present action under the Punishment and Appeal Rules. The proceedings being held against the respondent-plaintiff were justified.

(3.) The Trial Court proceeded on the following issues: