JAGDISH CHAND Vs. REGIONAL AUDIT OFFICER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.8.2001 dismissing the writ petition.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that appellant-writ petitioner. (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') was cashier in the factory of Raisinghnagar Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Limited. The third respondent Sohanlal was the Manager of the said factory. On the basis of audit report of 1986-87, an enquiry was conducted by the Regional Audit Officer against the appellant Jagdish Chand and Sohanlal. He found the appellant guilty for making certain unauthorised payments to the contractors. He was held liable for a loss of Rs. 31,101/-. He was also directed to pay Rs. 500.00 against the charges for proceedings. Against the said order of Regional Audit Officer dated 26.6.1989, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Additional Registrar (Appeals), Co-operative Societies, Jodhpur. The appeal was found to be barred by limitation. An application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was also submitted by the appellant. According to the appellant, the decision of the Regional Audit Officer came to his knowledge only on 24.8.1991 and he filed the appeal on 26.8.1991 and, therefore, the appeal was within the limitation. This was not accepted by the Additional Registrar (Appeals), Co-operative Societies, Jodhpur. The appellate court found that ordersheet dated 26.6.1989 bears the signature of the appellant and, therefore, it cannot be denied that he had the knowledge of the judgment against him. Thus, according to the appellate court, the plea that he came to know about the judgment only on 24.8.1991 was not correct. The appellate court rejected the appeal by order dated 27.02.1992 as barred by limitation. The appellant approached this court by way of writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition by order dated 27.8.2001.

(3.) It is contended by Mr. Sudhir Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant that learned Single Judge has failed to consider that in view of the provisions of Rule 74(8) of Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules, 1966 it was obligatory on the part of Regional Audit Officer to supply a copy of the judgment to the appellant. The copy of the judgment was supply to the appellant only on 24.8.1991. He has supported this fact from the Annexure-4 dated 24.8.1991. It is a letter from Raisinghnagar Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Limited wherein it is clearly mentioned that the copy of the judgment was made available to the appellant on 24.8.1991. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the Sec. 124(2) of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 the appeal could be submitted only within 60 days from the date of the order. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the date of delivery of the copy of judgment is of no relevance.