GAURI SHANKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of this petition has assailed the proceedings initiated against him on the basis of audit reports under Section 74 (1) of Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1965") and has prayed that the said inquiries be called for and the same be quashed and set aside and further the petitioner be granted compensation for unnecessary harassment in wrongful prosecution.

(2.) The petitioner appearing in person submits that he was posted at Ajmer as a Deputy Manager on 30.06.1981 and (chilling (centre) was brought in his possession vide order dated04.11.1981 and submits that the handling loss was brought down by him from 24% to 1%. On account of such action, the colleague with the purpose of harassing his career got annual audit reports prepared for the year 1981-82 and 1982-83 while petitioner was under suspension from 01.10.1982. The petitioner submits that charge sheets were served upon him and the Chief Auditor vide his order dated 30.01.1995 held the petitioner guilty of the charges and directed recovery of the amount. The petitioner has challenged the said orders on the basis that the proceedings had been completed on 19.04.1994 but no action was taken and he therefore had to approach this court by preferring the writ petition No. 6071/1994 praying that the Chief Auditor be directed to take decision as he was bound to decide within a period of 60 days. This court decided the writ petition and directed Co-operative Department to decide the matter within a period of six weeks vide order dated 19.12.1994. It is stated that while the petitioner has challenged the said order by preferring an appeal under Section 124 of the Act of 1965, the order passed by Chief Auditor was in haste and the petitioner submits that the appeal was decided by the Additional Registrar vide order dated 07.08.1997 who set aside the order and remanded the case back to the Chief Auditor for fresh decision and again the matter is pending with the Cooperative Department while the petitioner has suffered harassment and humiliation.

(3.) The petitioner has taken this court to the audit report to submit that on the audit report, there are no signatures of the Manager. The audit report mentions that the same is for the year 1981-82 and it states that the audit was completed and concluded in June 1984 however in subsequent cases, it mentions about a cheque having been issued on 19.07.1984, and thus, it is submitted that the audit report is a temporary document and cannot be relied upon to initiate inquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner further submits that the inquiries were conducted against the petitioner relating to the same year by initiating two different inquiries, one for the quarterly reports of the audit and another for the yearly report for the audit for the same year. Thus, two inquiries were conducted for the quarterly reports for 1981-82 and 1982-83 and two inquiries were conducted for annual report of 1981-82 and 1982-83. The petitioner submits that in the quarterly report, the alleged loss to the Department is mentioned as 1,09,934.46/- relating to the period 1982-83 however, in the annual report as reflected in Annexure R-2/2 for the same year 1982-83, the sum reflected is less than of Rs. 15590/-. It is further submitted that in a decision of the Chief Audit Officer relating to the annual report, the petitioner has not been found guilty as is apparent from Annexure R-2/2. Similarly for the year 1982-83, the Chief Audit Officer has not found the petitioner guilty of the charge as the petitioner was under suspension from 01.10.1982 but for the quarterly reports, the petitioner has been held guilty.