Dharam Pal Singh vs Special Secretary to Government of Haryana, Cooperation Department and others

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—At the relevant time the petitioner Dharam Pal Singh was Secretary of the Ballah Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd., Karnal and Dilbag Singh was a Salesman. During the tenure of both the petitioner and Dilbag Singh an embezzlement relating to loss of urea/DAP came to light on 18.8.1004 relating to the years 1991-92 and 1992-93. The arbitration proceedings launched against both by the respondent cooperative society were concluded against both. The Arbitrator held the petitioner responsible for the loss of urea. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the ARCS, Karnal. The appeal was rejected. A revision petition was filed before the Joint Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Cooperation Department, Chandigarh. The case was remanded vide order dated 13.12.1996. The remand was occasioned for consideration of an affidavit dated 9.6.1992 (P-1) submitted by Dilbag Singh, which was worded as follows :

I, Dilbag Singh, Salesman the Ballah Agriclture Cooperative Society Ltd; Ballah, do hereby stated that the amount of fertilizer of Rs. 96,930/-which is standing against me, is correct and the said amount I have used in my house hold works and this amount has been received on account of sale of fertilizer by cash. This amount I shall deposit in the account of the Ballah Cooperative Society Ltd.; within a week. In case the said amount is not deposited by me within a week then he himself will responsible for fine and expenses and shall pay till date with interest.

Sh. Dilbag Singh owned up to diversion of sale proceeds of fertilizer towards household expenses. Dilbag Singh had also repaid certain amounts and Rs. 29438/-remained in balance, for which amount the arbitration proceedings were initiated by the Society. The ARCS, Karnal passed a fresh order dated 19.5.2006 (P-3) holding both the petitioner and Dilbag Singh equally liable for the amount embezzled and saddled them with Rs. 14719/- each.

Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the DRCS, Karnal. A cross appeal was also filed by Dilbag Singh, Salesman. The DRCS by a common order dated 15.9.2006 (P-4) dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and held him liable for the entire amount of Rs. 29438/-. Still aggrieved the petitioner took up the matter in revision petition u/s 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act 1961 before the Special Secretary, Cooperation, Haryana. The Special Secretary passed order dated 20.8.2010 and set aside the order passed by the DRCS, Karnal and restored the award dated 19.5.2006 holding petitioner and Dilbag Singh jointly liable. The orders are at Annexures P-4 & P-5.

The orders at Annexures P-3, P-4 & P-5 are impugned in this petition filed under Articles 226 & 227of the Constitution of India. The prayer for certiorari has been made for quashing the order of the Special Secretary which is said to be without any reason or evidence on record.

I have heard Mr. S.S. Dalal learned counsel for the petitioner on the issues raised by him. As head of the office the petitioner exercised supervision and control over the Salesman. Though, it was the duty of Dilbag Singh to deposit the sale of DAP etc. it was the duty of the petitioner as Secretary and incharge of the Society to receive the amount of sale of DAP from Dilbag Singh and deposit the same with the bank. The length and period of embezzlement happening over a long period of time to my mind cannot absolve the petitioner from vicarious liability. I do not think that there is any infirmity in the inference drawn by the Special Secretary that continuous embezzlement could not have taken place without the connivance of the Secretary with the Salesman. Neither the Special Secretary was incorrect in holding that the remand proceedings were in order and in compliance of remand directions. The affidavit of Dilbag Singh would clearly implicate him. But that affidavit does not exonerate the petitioner. I do not see any error of jurisdiction; perverse finding of fact apparent on the face of record or absurd reasoning in the orders impugned and would uphold them as legal and valid. Consequently, I see no merit in this petition and dismiss the same. No costs.