MULAKH RAJ & OTHERS Vs. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY (COOPERATION) (NOW JOINT SECRETARY (COOPERATION), PUNJAB & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for writ of certiorari or mandamus for quashing the impugned orders dated 23.04.1993 (Annexure P-6), 20.01.1994 (Annexure P-8) and 31.05.1994 (Annexure P-11), whereby a sum of Rs. 1,13,270.83 was directed to be recovered from the petitioners in equal shares and the said order was upheld, in appeal and revision.

(2.) The pleaded case of the petitioners is that they are members of Agampur Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd., Agampur, registered under the provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The management of the society vests in an elected managing committee which was elected in accordance with Section 26 of the Act and Rule 23 read with appendix 'C' of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The elections to the managing committee of the society had taken place on 02.06.1988, in which the petitioners and four other committee members were elected as members of the managing committee of the society. The election of the President and Vice President of the society was held on 01.07.1988 and the petitioners along with other four committee members remained in office only upto 19.04.1989 and thereafter, were removed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Anandpur Sahib. Audit of the society for the period from 01.07.1986 to 30.06.1987 was conducted by Surinder Kumar, Sub Inspector (Audit), Cooperative Societies, Chamkaur Sahib, Block-I, which was started on 27.04.1988 and was completed on 20.06.1988. The audit was not for the period when the management of the society was entrusted to the petitioners along with other committee members. The said officer reported embezzlement against Suresh Kumar, Ex.Secretary of the society to the tune of Rs. 1,13,270.83. On the basis of the audit report, the society had initiated proceedings against the members of the managing committee who were elected on 31.10.1986 since the embezzlement pertained to the period ending 30.06.1987. The members of the management committee who were elected on 02.06.1988 were also impleaded as party in the proceedings. The Assistant Registrar submitted an enquiry report on 11.01.1990 to the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ropar and the petitioners who were elected on 02.06.1988 were also held responsible for not obtaining the security from the employees of the society since the managing committee had passed a resolution giving 6 months time for depositing the amount by the Ex.Secretary, during which, he had committed many other illegal acts. A notice was issued to the petitioners and the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies passed an order dated 15.02.1991 wherein he directed that a sum of Rs. 1,13,270.83 was to be recovered from the members of the managing committee and the employees of the society in equal shares. The petitioners filed appeal under Section 68 of the Act and the Joint Director, vide order dated 15.07.1992, directed that the case be remanded to the Deputy Registrar to go into all the aspects keeping in view the proportion of delinquency committed by each party and all the parties should be heard and the surcharge provision should be executed strictly as per the provisions of the Act. In pursuance of the remand order, the Deputy Registrar repeated the earlier order on 23.04.1993. The petitioners filed a appeal under Section 128 before the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Society who dismissed the same on 20.01.1994. The revision petition under Section 69 of the Act was dismissed in limine on 31.05.1994. The present writ petition has, accordingly, been filed.

(3.) In the written statement filed by respondent No.3, it was pleaded that the managing committee members who were elected on 02.06.1988 were impleaded as party because they did not take any action against the then Secretary of the society for the reasons best known to them. It was denied that the scope of enquiry under Section 54 was limited upto 30.06.1987 only. Surcharge proceedings were initiated against all concerned and the petitioners, who remained as committee members of the society were also impleaded because they did not take any action for recovering the embezzled amount.