OM PRAKASH CHOPRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the short point for determination by this Court is as to whether the proceedings against Om Prakash Chopra, Ex-Salesman of the Karnal Central Co-operative Store Limited, Karnal, petitioner, could be initiated under Section 5 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, as applicable to the State of Haryana, or the matter was to be referred for arbitration under Section 55 of the said Act as a dispute between the Society and its officer as shortage in the funds of Society had been detected during audit caused by negligence, misappropriation of fraudulent retention of the properly of the Society.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Salesman with the Karnal Central Co-operative Store Limited, Karnal In bis capacity as Salesman, he was entrusted with the duty of depositing the amount of sale proceeds with the Store. On 30th June, 1978, on verification of the stock of the Super Bazar, a shortage to the tune of Rs. 61,464,75 was detected. Thereupon, the respondent Karnal Central Co-operative Store Limited, Karnal, approached the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana. for initiating the arbitration proceedings in the matter. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karnal, acted as Arbitrator and after Considering the necessary material placed before him, he declared petitioner Om Prakash Chopra liable for payment of Rs. 62,233.05 (Rs. 61,464.75 as principal and Rs, 768 30 as interest upto 31-3-1977). Against the aforesaid award of the Arbitrator dated 24th February, 1978, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 68 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, which was, however, dismissed on 20th June, 1979, though slightly modifying the award by reducing the cost of the proceedings.

(3.) In the present writ petition, the impugned award of the Arbitrator as well as the appellate order passed by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Haryana, Co-operation Department (Annexures P-1 and P-2 respectively), are under challenge mainly on the ground, that it was not a matter which could be referred for arbitration under Section 55 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, as a dispute between the Society and its past officer, but it squarely fell within the purview of Section 54 ot the said Act under which an iuquiry could be made by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. Sections 54 and 55 of the Act are reproduced as under :