RAGHAV JHA Vs. REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has moved this Court for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order in Award Case No. 170 of 1963 passed on 17-12-1963 by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, contained in Annexure-1, the order in Award Appeal No. 45 of 1963, dated 30-11-64 passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operativa Societies, contained in Annexure-2 tha order of the Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna, in Revision petition No. 1 of 1965 dated 31-10-1967, contained in Annexure-3 and the order of the Registrar Co-operative Societies, -Bihar, Patna, in Revision Case No. 21 of 1967, contained in An-nexure-4.

(2.) The petitioner was the Secretary of the Sibamani Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., the respondent No. 4, a Bank registered as a Co-operative Society under the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). During his tenure as the Secretary of the said Bank irregular expenses were allegedly incurred out of the funds of the Bank, The respondent Bank filed Award Case No. 170 of 1963 against the petitioner. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, respondent No. 3, entertained the application, The petitioner was served with the notice to show cause, After hearing the petitioner and the respondent Bank, the respondent No. 3 made an award for a sum of Rs. 6,004.54 paise on account of expenses incurred out of the funds of the Bank in the private and individual cases of the petitioner and for unjustified transfer of dues against a sundry debtor to the profit and loss account and excess bills realised by him. Bank's claims on account of some other expenses were, however, rejected. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Bihar, respondent No. 2. The appeal was heard and was dismissed except in respect of a claim of Rs. 10/- as excess T. A. in which part the anneal was allowed. The petitioner thereafter filed a review petition. The Joint Registrar finding no merit rejected the review application. He however, made some observations in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner having failed before the Joint Registrar filed an application in revision under Section 56 of the Act. The Registrar respondent No. 1, held that the revision application was not maintainable and rejected the same. The petitioner has filed the instant application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and questioned the validity of the orders of the Assistant Registrar, the Joint Registrar and the Registrar on various grounds.

(3.) The facts stated in the writ application have not been controverted as the respondents have not chosen to file any return.