IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 14678 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : 05.11.2009 Jaswant Singh .... PETITIONER Versus Additional Registrar (Admn.), Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ..... RESPONDENT CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Harinder Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner, who is retired Secretary of the Chahal Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited, Village Chahal – respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent Society'), has filed the instant petition, challenging the order dated 17.8.2007 (Annexure P-6), whereby the Additional Registrar (Admn.), Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh, while allowing the revision petition filed by the respondent Society, set aside the order dated 26.5.2003, passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Faridkot, and passed the Award CWP No. 14678 of 2007 -2- in favour of the respondent Society to recover an amount of Rs. 36,236.32 from the petitioner. In the present case, the petitioner served the respondent Society upto 30.6.1987 i.e. the date of his retirement. At the time of his retirement, the petitioner gave in writing that if lateron, any cash in hand recoverable from him is found, he will be responsible for that cash in hand. After his retirement, the accounts of the respondent Society were audited and on the basis of the said audit report, an arbitration reference was sought by the respondent Society under Section 55/56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), for recovery of Rs.38,544.23 (Rs. 25,013.23 as the principal amount, Rs. 13,281/- on account of interest and Rs. 250/- being costs). The Arbitrator, vide its order dated 12.3.1993 (Annexure P-1) did not accept the claim of the respondent Society on the ground that while preparing the arbitration reference, the working capital for the period ending 30.5.1987 as well as the cash in hand were not worked out, and a direction was issued to the respondent Society that according to the working capital as on 30.6.1987, after adjusting the assets and liabilities of the petitioner, if any amount remains due against the petitioner, then the respondent Society may seek fresh reference of the said amount and claim the same in accordance with law. According to the above said order, the respondent Society sought a fresh reference for recovery of Rs. 63,787/- (Rs. 36,236.32 as the principal amount, Rs. 27,300.68 on account of interest and Rs. 250/- being CWP No. 14678 of 2007 -3- costs). The Arbitrator, vide its order dated 20.11.1995 (Annexure P-2), rejected the claim of the respondent Society while observing that the audit note dated 30.6.1987 is not correct. Against the above said order, the respondent Society filed appeal before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Faridkot, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.6.1999 (Annexure P-3). However, it was observed that if so advised, the respondent Society can prepare the arbitration reference as per correct record. In view of the above said order, the respondent Society again sought a fresh reference for recovery of Rs. 1,05,107/- (Rs. 36,236.32 as the principal amount, Rs. 68,620.68 on account of interest and Rs. 250/- being costs). The Arbitrator, vide its order dated 20.11.2000 (Annexure P-4), rejected the claim of the respondent Society. Against the said order, the respondent Society filed appeal, which was also dismissed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Faridkot, vide order dated 26.5.2003 (Annexure P-5). Against the said order, the respondent Society filed revision under Section 69 of the Act, which has been allowed vide the impugned order, while observing as under : “The petitioner society produced the original cash book at the time of the arguments which has been perused by me. Jaswant Singh, respondent No.2 has recorded in the cash book that he will be liable for any discrepancy found by the audit or otherwise. It was also noticed during perusal of various entries on the receipt and expenditure side that Jaswant Singh has been CWP No. 14678 of 2007 -4- receiving more amounts and he has been depositing less amount in the account of the society and that too after some interval of days. The audit party has verified each and every (entry) made by Jaswant Singh, respondent No.2, totalled the same and came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 36.236.32 was deposited less by Jaswant Singh, then Secretary during the period of audit i.e. 1.7.86 to 30.6.87. Some of the cuttings in the cash book appeared to have been made by the audit party with a view to correct the total of receipt and expenditure side. So far as the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No.2, that entries were not attested by Jaswant Singh, is concerned, it has been found that by and large no entry was attested by respondent No.2 in the cash book which was required under the rules and procedure but perhaps due to wrong practice and ignorance of rules such attestation was not made in the cash book entries. In any case, respondent No.2 cannot take benefit of his wrongs in the maintenance of cash books.” After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned order, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order, passed by the revisional authority. The reading of the orders, passed by the Arbitrator and the Appellate Authority, reveals that both the authorities had not properly appreciated the evidence and came to the wrong conclusion that no amount was recoverable from the petitioner. It was wrongly observed that the entries made during June, 1987 in the cash book will have no effect on the cash in hand. A wrong observation has been made as how the balance cash in hand of Rs. 25,013.23 as on 30.5.1987 has become to the tune of Rs. 36,236.32 as on 30.6.1987. On conjectures, it has CWP No. 14678 of 2007 -5- been held that the liabilities of Rs. 11,700/- as on 30.5.1987 were not recovered during the month of June, 1987, but have not been shown in the balance sheet ending on 30.6.1987. In my opinion, the revisional authority, after properly appreciating the facts and the material on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that a sum of Rs. 36,236,32 was to be recovered from the petitioner, as he has received more amounts from the depositors/ customers and has deposited less amount in the account of the respondent Society. A finding of fact has been recorded by the revisional authority, after appreciating the material and evidence available on the record. A lenient view has already been taken by the revisional authority, while not ordering for recovery of interest from the petitioner on the aforesaid amount, which would have been more than Rs. 50,000/- on the date of passing of the order. Thus, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. November 05, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE