DEVI SINGH JISHTU Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioner filed a complaint against respondent No. 4. Inspector General of Police (Vigilance), Himachal Pradesh conducted inquiry regarding irregularities in the H.P. State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Limited. According to the report, respondent No, 4 has been paid a sum of Rs. 50,051/- as T.A./D.A. for his exposure visit to South East Asia w.e.f. 13.10.1999 to 31.10.1999 @ 90% whereas he was entitled for 25% D.A., i.e. Rs. 13,937/-. Registrar Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh sent a notice to the Managing Director of the Bank on 30.3.2006 for explaining under what circumstances financial irregularity was committed. The Managing Director of respondent No. 4 sent a notice to respondent No. 4 on 5.4.2006. Respondent No. 4 filed reply to the same on 12.7.2006. The Registrar Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh while exercising the powers under Section 68 of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 appointed Sh. L.K. Sharma, Joint Registrar (Marketing) Cooperative Societies, who held inquiry against the Managing Director of the respondent-Bank and submitted the report to the Registrar Cooperative Societies. During the course of inquiry it was held that a sum of Rs. 41,679/- has been paid in excess to respondent No. 4 and the same was to be recovered with interest. The report is dated 21.1.2009. The Registrar Cooperative Societies sent a communication to the Managing Director of the respondent Bank on 6.12.2008 whereby the copy of the letter of organizing institution sponsoring the exposure visit to South East Asia alongwith terms and conditions like fee, boarding, lodging, D.A. payable to him and all other relevant documents were to be made available to the Directorate. The Registrar Cooperative Societies has also clarified that the Department has not passed any order regarding disqualification of respondent No. 4 from the Board of Directors. Accordingly, he continued to be the Chairman of the Bank as per bye-laws. Petitioner filed CWP No. 2999 of 2008 in this Court. It was decided on 13.7.2010 whereby the revising authority was directed to decide the revision preferred by respondent No. 4 within two months from the date of passing of the judgment, i.e. 13.7.2010. The revision preferred by respondent No. 4 was disposed of by the Additional Registrar (Administration) on 10.9.2010. Respondent No. 4 has deposited the amount on 12.10.2010 as per order dated 10.9.2010. Mr. Ajay Sharma has strenuously argued that respondent No. 4 was defaulter as per sub-rule (xix) of Rule 2 and has incurred disqualification under Rule 41 (2) (i) of the Himachal Cooperative Societies Rules, 1971.

(2.) Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Bipin Negi and Mr. B.M. Chauhan have argued that respondent No. 4 is not defaulter and has not incurred any disqualification under the Himachal Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 and the Rules framed thereunder.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully.