IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 6473 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 21st October, 2009. Joginder Singh Petitioner through Ms. R.P.Dudeja, Advocate Versus Ludhiana Central Coop Bank Ltd. Respondents through Ms. Vertika H.Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed by the petitioner against the order dated 11.3.2008 [Annexure P-1] passed by the Secretary, Department of Cooperation[A], Government of Punjab, Chandigarh while exercising the powers of the State Government under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. It appears that large scale bunglings were made and mis- appropriation committed in the accounts of the Ludhiana Central Cooperative Bank. The petitioner was a Cashier in one of the Branches of the said Bank. A liability of Rs.5,98,770.50/- was fastened on the petitioner and on appeal filed by him, which is based upon the report of the Handwriting Expert, the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patiala vide order dated 31.1.2005 reduced the petitioner's liability to the tune of Rs.14,701.50 only. Still aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the State Government which has been dismissed by the Secretary, Department of Cooperation, Punjab, vide the impugned order dated 11.3.2008. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that there is a contradiction in the findings returned by the revisional Authority. It is argued that while the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies reduced the petitioner's liability after observing that he was not on duty and did not make the offending entries in the Cash Book, the Secretary, Cooperation Department, in his impugned order dated 11.3.2008 has observed otherwise. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any contradiction in the two orders, referred to above. What the Secretary, Cooperation Department, Punjab has observed is that as per the record, the petitioner was “deputed” to make the entries of loans and to tally the balance books. He does not say that the petitioner 'actually made' those entries or 'tallied' the balance books. No interference in the impugned order is, thus, called for. Dismissed. October 21, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE