IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 5249 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 28.08.2008 Gurnam Singh .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Virk, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr. Y.P. Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.6. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner, who was working as a Secretary in the Sehjomajra Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited, Sehjomajra, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana – respondent No.5 (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent Society'), has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the Award dated 21.9.2004 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, CWP No. 5249 of 2007 -2- Samrala, District Ludhiana (respondent No.4 herein), whereby on an arbitration claim petition under Sections 55 and 56 of the Punjab Co- operative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), the respondent Society was permitted to recover the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- along with interest from the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought for quashing of the orders dated 3.5.2005 (Annexure P-4) and 4.10.2006 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana (respondent No.3 herein) and the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh (respondent No.2 herein), respectively, whereby the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid award dated 21.9.2004 were dismissed. The petitioner has impugned the aforesaid orders on the following two grounds : (a) That no claim petition was filed strictly in accordance with 51 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Rules, 1963 and Appendix F appended to the Rules. Therefore, no Award could have been passed against the petitioner, as the same amounts to denial of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, the impugned Award passed against the petitioner is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the same cannot be sustained. (b) That the respondent Society passed a resolution dated 5.10.2002, copy of which has been attached with the petition as Annexure P-2, according to which it was resolved that the disputed amount of Rs.1,90,000/- was given by the petitioner to Balwinder Singh (respondent CWP No. 5249 of 2007 -3- No. 6 herein) for purchase of manure and other necessary articles and the said amount has not been re-paid by Balwinder Singh, therefore, the same be recovered from him. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent Society, while referring the dispute regarding recovery of the said amount from the petitioner, did not take care of its own resolution and even the Assistant Registrar, while deciding the arbitration reference, has not taken into consideration the said resolution, passed by the respondent Society, and illegally passed the impugned Award permitting the respondent Society to recover the said amount from the petitioner. We have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned orders as well as the writ petition and the separate written statements filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, the respondent Society and respondent No.6. Admittedly, in this case, an amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- was advanced by the petitioner to respondent No.6. In the cash book, the entry of the said advance was signed by the petitioner, but in the record, there was no consent or thumb impression or signature of respondent No.6, who had allegedly received the said advance. The case of the petitioner is that the said advance was made to respondent No.6 by Shri Jasbir Singh, the then Secretary of the respondent Society, but in the cash book, he got the signatures of the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that after receiving the said amount, respondent No.6 had given a receipt, which was attached with the voucher and kept in the record of the respondent Society. On the other hand, case of respondent No.6 is that he neither received any CWP No. 5249 of 2007 -4- amount in advance from the petitioner nor he ever put his thumb impression/signature on the cash book nor issued any receipt for receiving the said amount. According to him, the petitioner has made false entry in his name, whereas actually the said amount was embezzled by the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned orders shows that the authorities under the Act have recorded a pure finding of fact to the effect that the petitioner, as a Secretary, has embezzled the aforesaid amount. He could not prove his innocence. The advance of Rs. 1,90,000/- given by him and entered in the cash book could not be proved to have been made to respondent No.6, as neither any receipt of advance was obtained from respondent No.6 nor his signatures were obtained in the cash book. As far as contention of the petitioner with regard to the resolution dated 5.10.2002 is concerned, it appears that no such resolution was produced by the petitioner in his defence before the Arbitrator. However, subsequently before the Appellate Authority, the said resolution was placed, but the petitioner could not prove the authenticity of the said resolution. In the written statement, the respondent Society has taken the stand that the resolution dated 5.10.2002 is a false and fabricated document and when the petitioner was working as Secretary of the respondent Society, by mis-using his official position, he has created it for his own personal gains. This alleged resolution was never conveyed to respondent No.6 by any one on behalf of the respondent Society nor it has been proved by the petitioner as to whether any such meeting was ever held in which the said resolution was passed by any competent authority. In view of this, we do not CWP No. 5249 of 2007 -5- find any force in the contention of the petitioner that this resolution is contrary to the claim made by the respondent Society in the reference. We also do not find any force in the contention of the petitioner that the respondent Society did not properly file the claim petition and the same has caused prejudice to the petitioner. From the perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that vide resolution dated 29.8.2003, a detailed claim was filed by the respondent Society, in which the disputed amount was claimed from the petitioner. The petitioner was given notice and he was provided opportunity to dispute the said claim and thereafter the impugned resolution was passed. Therefore, in our opinion, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, as each and every fact of the claim was discussed in the resolution. The petitioner was given full opportunity to prove his case and after considering the respective evidence led by the parties and hearing both the parties, the impugned Award was passed. The Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority have also considered the contentions raised by the petitioner and then recorded a pure findings of fact, which do not require any interference by this Court, in exercise of the inherent powers under Article 226 and 227of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE August 28, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) ndj JUDGE