JAI CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by one Jai Chand, Development Officer, Central Co-operative Bank, Sirsa whereby he has prayed for the issuing of writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Hisar dated 2.2.1985 (Annexure P-3), order dated 18.10.1994 passed by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana (Annexure P-4) and order dated 20.1.1997 passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government Co-operative Department Haryana (Annexure P-5). The case projected by him in this petition is as follows :-

(2.) Respondents No. 1 to 3 contested the petition, urging that the petitioner being Incharge of the Tohana Branch of the Hisar District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Hisar was negligent in the performance of his duty as Rs. 17,000/- was withdrawn from the account of a dead person through loose cheque by one Gurcharan Singh. According to the Banking Law, it was the responsibility of the Branch Manager to see that no wrong payment is made from any account. Bank had suffered loss due to the negligence and carelessness of the petitioner. Account of deceased-Bhagat Singh was a dead account and note to this effect was made in the ledger. The words "dead account" were torn out from the ledger and payment was made through loose cheque. It was the duty of the petitioner to see that payment was being made through loose cheque and from the dead account. Petitioner with ulterior motive passed the cheque and allowed the amount to be withdrawn from the dead account. This action of the petitioner was not the act of a vigilant, prudent and efficient Manager. Either the petitioner connived with the wrong-doers or he was negligent in the performance of the duty in that misdeed was committed under his nose. Initially the case was referred under Sections 55/56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 for arbitration. Arbitrator dismissed the arbitration application on the objection of the counsel for the petitioner and other employees that this case could not be heard under Sections 55/56 for the said act. After dismissal of the arbitration application, the Bank referred the case for surcharge under Section 54 of the said Act as the arbitrator had held that Bank had suffered a loss of Rs. 17,000/- due to the negligence of the employees. A clear cut case of surcharge was made out against the petitioner as the Bank had suffered loss due to the negligence and carelessness of the petitioner. It was denied that respondent No. 3 was influenced by respondent No. 4. It was also denied that petitioner was not allowed to inspect the enquiry report. Each and every point raised by the petitioner was discussed by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana. He dismissed the appeal on merits. Similarly decision of the Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Department of Cooperative, Haryana is legal and valid. When the payment was being made, petitioner ought to have been extra-careful and vigilant and examined all the relevant documents.

(3.) Respondent No. 5 and respondents No. 7 and 8 also filed separate written statements contesting the writ petition.