IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 5139/2008 (OA 2083/96) Date of Decision : May 11, 2009 Sh. Milap Singh Parmar Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. K. D. Shreedhar, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. Advocate General for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) That the notice at Annexure A-1/1 may be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the order passed by the Assistant Registrar (Annexure A-6) and the appellate order dated 19.6.1993 (Annexure A-1/2) to the extent impugned may be quashed and set aside. The applicant may be held not responsible for making any payment to the Society on account of alleged embezzlement 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 which has been found to have been committed by the ex-salesman.” The inquiry under Section 67 (1) of Himachal Pradesh Co- operatives Societies Act, 1968 (Act 3 of 1969) was initiated to inquire into the conduct and the affairs of M/s Ichhi Co-Operative Marketing and Consumers Society Limited Ichhi. The inquiry was primarily to look into the affairs of the Society as managed by one Shri Krishan Kumar, Salesman, who is alleged to have embezzled/ misused an amount of Rs. 1,99,585.33. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report and based thereupon the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Society, Dharamshala passed order dated 31.1.1992 ordering recovery of Rs. 1,99,585.33 against Shri Krishan Kumar Ex- Salesman. The order was based on the positive finding returned by the Inquiry Officer appointed under the Act. However, the Assistant Registrar further directed that in the event of the said amount not being recovered from Shri Krishan Kumar the same be proportionately recovered from (i) Shri V.L. Raina, Ex-Manager Rs. 1,77,692.35 and (ii) the present petitioner, Shri Milap Singh Parmar, Ex. Executive Officer of the Society Rs. 21,892.98. From the record it could not be shown that the present petitioner was ever associated with any of the inquiry proceedings. Neither was he ever issued any show cause notice nor was he served with the inquiry report. Infact shockingly in the reply the 3 respondents have taken a stand that “it is not the duty of the inquiry officer to supply copy of the inquiry report”. Aggrieved by the impugned order Annexure A-6 the petitioner preferred an appeal which stood decided by Joint Secretary (Cooperation) vide order dated 19.6.1993 (Annexure A-1/2). Surprisingly even the appellate authority also did not take into account the factum of violation of principles of natural justice and petitioner’s right of a fair hearing and dismissed the appeal by observing as under: “The recovery is to be made first from the ex- salesman. It is learnt that this person is employed in Government service and it should not be difficult to recover this amount from him. If necessary Registrar Coop. Societies may take up the matter with the Head of Department of the concerned employee for recovery of this amount. The appellants are affected only if the ex-salesman does not repay this amount. Nevertheless the official of the society cannot wash their hands off from their liability to make good the loss in case the ex-salesman does not repay this amount. The reasoning adopted is fallacious. In the absence of any inquiry against the petitioner how could the liability be imposed upon him. In the reply it is not the respondents’ case that the petitioner herein, had in any manner failed to discharge his duties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations framed by the Society. Misconduct or dereliction of duty is not a charge against the 4 petitioner. Hence the petitioner cannot be fastened with any liability for the alleged misconduct solely attributable to third party. In these circumstances the orders dated 31.1.1992 and 19.6.1993 to the extent that recovery be effected from the petitioner is quashed. The respondents shall not effect any recovery from the petitioner, except in accordance with law. Petition stands allowed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. May 11, 2009 (PK)