MALKIAT SINGH Vs. KOTLA CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was working in the Kotla Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited, Kotla Tehsil Sirhind, District Patiala, as a salesman in the year 1979. On Dec. 12, 1978, he obtained 40 bags of D.A.P. Khad from Cooperative Marketing Society, Bassi Pathana. In the stock register, however, only 30 bags of D.P.A. Khad were entered. There was an annual audit carried out for the period July 1, 1978 to June 30, 1979 and at the time of audit the aforesaid transaction came to the notice of the Auditor and the petitioner was asked about it. The petitioner explained that even though the Salesman of that other Society had prepared a bill for 40 bags of D.A.P. Khad, only 30 bags were, in fact, issued, as only that quantity was available in stock at that time. In support of his explanation he produced before the Auditor gate-pass of the said Marketing Society, Bassi Pathana. The Auditor made a note in the stock register to the following effect:-

(2.) The petitioner left service of the Society in the last week of July 1980. Reference was made to the Arbitrator in the year 1988. The Inspector, Cooperative Societies, vide award Annexure P-3 dated Nov. 30, 1988, held that the petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 1527.50 as principal and Rs. 1532.50 as interest, besides expenses and future interest at the rate of 111/2 per cent till the date of realisation. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, vide Annexure P-5 and revision was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by order Annexure P-7 dated Sept. 8, 1992. The petitioner has assailed these orders through this writ petition.

(3.) The contention of Mr. H.S. Diwana, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the present case clearly fell within the purview of Sec. 54 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Arbitrator and the higher authorities had fallen into a serious error of law in proceeding on the assumption that the dispute fell under Sec. 55 of the said Act. He further contended that according to the proviso to sub-section (1) of Sec. 54 of the Act, no enquiry can be held after the expiry of six years from the date of any act or omission referred to in the said sub-section. There is, however, no period of limitation as far as Sec. 55 is concerned. In order to appreciate the respective submissions, it will be convenient to read Sections 54 and 55 of the Act in juxtaposition as under:-