AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 20.03.2001 (Annexure P-3), passed by Additional Secretary Cooperation, Punjab, Chandigarh, whereby the petitioner was held guilty for embezzling the funds of the Dandrala Dhindsa Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Society’) and recovery notice dated 16.05.2001 (Annexure P-4), issued by the Administrator, Cooperative Society, Dandrala Dhindsa, whereby the petitioner was asked to deposit the due amount of embezzlement within 15 days. Further, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Administrator, Cooperative Society, Dandrala Dhindsa not to make recovery from the petitioner during the pendency of the present writ petition.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Manager with respondent No.4-Society; respondent No.8-Madan Lal was appointed as Salesman and expired during the pendency of the present writ petition and is represented through his legal representatives, namely Bholi Rani and Jagdeep Kumar, however, Jagdeep Kumar has also since expired; respondent No.7-Ramesh Kumar was serving as Accountant of the Society; Kartar Singh was the President of the Society and after his death his sons, namely Barinder Singh and Narinder Singh, being legal heirs, are representing as respondents No.5 & 6. Respondent No.4-Society, being the lead Society, was engaged in the distribution of consumer goods to 15 link societies and was also running a Retail Consumer Counter Cell. Ramesh Kumar, Accountant was responsible for the distribution of consumer goods by the lead Society, whereas Madan Lal was Incharge of the retail shop. During the period from 01.07.1978 to 07.10.1981, stock worth Rs.2,82,457.20 was issued to the Retail Consumer Cell by the lead Society. Out of this, an amount of Rs.2,07,328.59 was deposited by Madan Lal on account of sales, thereby leaving behind a stock worth of Rs.79,956.53. Upon inspection, stock worth Rs.2126.29 was found in the Consumer Cell when its lock was broken by the Society. Ramesh Kumar, Accountant had shown the stock worth Rs.8768.29 issued to the Consumer Cell without obtaining the signatures of respondent No.8-Madan Lal. Thereafter, the Society initiated an arbitration proceedings under Section 55 & 56 of the Punjab State Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as ‘1961 Act’) for the recovery of Rs.1,31,763/- against Pritam Singh Dhindsa (the present petitioner), Ex. Manager; Madan Lal, Ex. Salesman; Ramesh Kumar, Ex. Accountant; and Barinder Singh and Narinder Singh sons of Kartar Singh, Ex. President. The arbitration award was passed by the Deputy Registrar (Enforcement), Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh, vide order dated 04.04.1995 (Annexure P-1), whereby Madan Lal, Ex. Salesman and Rakesh Kumar, Ex. Accountant were held responsible for Rs.98,175.99 and Rs.8768.19, respectively along with interest @ 17.5%. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, no liability was fastened upon him under the said award. Aggrieved against the said award, Madan Lal, Ex. Salesman preferred an appeal under Section 68 of the 1961 Act which was dismissed by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, vide order dated 30.09.1997 (Annexure P-2) and award dated 04.04.1995 (Annexure P-1) was upheld. Thereafter, Madan Lal, Ex. Salesman preferred a revision petition under Section 69 of the 1961 Act against the award dated 04.04.1995 (Annexure P-1) and appellate order dated 30.09.1997 (Annexure P-2) before the Additional Secretary, Cooperative (Appeals), Punjab, Chandigarh. The revisional authority, vide its order dated 20.03.2001 (Annexure P-3), held that the petitioner being overall Incharge of the affairs of the Society was responsible for causing loss to the Society due to lack of proper supervision over the staff working in the Sales Section of the Society and for having tempered the resolution. Consequenlty, the Administrator of the Society issued recovery notice dated 16.05.2001 (Annexure P-4) to the petitioner, whereby the petitioner was asked to deposit the due amount within 15 days. The order dated 20.03.2001 (Annexure P-3) and recovery notice dated 16.05.2001 (Annexure P-4) have been assailed in the present petition.
The only ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not responsible for the loss caused to the Society as his signatures were pasted on the receipts.
The said contention has been opposed by learned counsel for the respondents, while referring to the findings recorded by the Revisional Authority in the impugned order dated 20.03.2001 (Annexure P-3) which reads as under :-
“Although the petitioner was authorised by the society to keep essential commodities to the extent of Rs.10,000/- only but this limit was not adhered to. It is felt that P.S. Dhindsa was mainly responsible to violate the decision of the committee whereby this limit was fixed. The guilt of Madan Lal is fully proved from the fact that receipts Nos. D-14,15,16,17 and 26 which were allegedly issued by P.S. Dhindsa were found to be forged. Similarly, he also forged the signatures of P.S. Dhindsa on some other receipts which have been mentioned in the impugned order dated 4.4.95 0f DRCS (E), P.S. Dhindsa tempered with the resolution passed by the then President of the society to show that the President undertakes to make the loss good the society an account of shortages of essential commodities This was deliberately done by P.S. Dhindsa to conceal his guilty. All the circumstances clearly indicate that P.S. Dhindsa, Madan Lal and Ramesh Kumar by conniving with each other embezzled the society funds by mis-appropriating the essential goods and thereby caused huge losses to the society. Therefore, I am inclined to amend the impugned orders to the extent that P.S Dhindsa and Madan Lal salesman to pay Rs.98175.99 along with upto date interest at the usual rates in equal shares to the society and Ramesh Kumar is to Pay Rs.8768.19 with interest to the society.”
Learned counsel for the respondents further submit that the liability fastened upon respondent No.8-Madan Lal and respondent No.7-Ramesh Kumar has already been deposited by them with the Society and it is only the petitioner, who assailed the order dated 20.03.2001 (Annexure P-3) passed by the revisional Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents.
The jurisdiction of this Court, while examining the finding of facts recorded by the Revisional Authority, is limited. It is well settled that the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction, cannot re-appreciate or re-evaluate the factual aspects of the case. In the present case, the Revisional Authority, upon due consideration of the material on record returned a categorical finding that the petitioner, being overall Incharge of the affairs of the Society, was responsible for lack of proper supervision over the functioning of the Sales Section. Further, the petitioner also tempered with the resolution. However, no material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the said findings are perverse or unsupported by evidence. The contention regarding forged signatures, being a disputed question of fact, cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings. Moreover, despite service, the petitioner did not appear before the Revisional Authority and was proceeded against ex parte. Thus, having failed to avail the opportunity to contest the matter at an appropriate stage, the petitioner cannot seek re-appreciation of factual aspects before this Court.
In this view of the matter, finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is hereby dismissed.