IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 5721 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 07.09.2009 Ranbir Singh ... PETITIONER Versus State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Dalal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Subhash Ahuja, Advocate, for respondent No.5. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the Award dated 26.7.2005 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rohtak, as well as the orders dated 11.1.2007 (Annexure P-4) and 17.10.2007 (Annexure P-5), passed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority, respectively, whereby the said Award has been upheld. In the present case, on a complaint made by 40 members belonging to the economically weaker section of the Durana Co-operative CWP No. 5721 of 2008 -2- Credit and Service Society Limited, Durana, District Sonepat (hereinafter referred to as `the respondent Society'), for embezzlement and mis- appropriation of the amount, arbitration proceedings were initiated by the respondent Society against the petitioner and one Mohinder Singh Salesman of the respondent Society under the provisions of the Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984. The Arbitrator, after providing full opportunity to the respondents to defend themselves, passed the impugned Award, and held them liable for embezzling the amount of the members of the respondent Society, and directed them to deposit the said amount with the respondent Society within the stipulated time. The said Award has been upheld by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana, Panchkula i.e. the Appellate Authority and the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government, Haryana Cooperative Department, Haryana, i.e. the Revisional Authority. A perusal of the impugned Award reveals that out of the 40 cases of embezzlement and mis-appropriation, the petitioner was found guilty in 16 cases, out of which in 11 cases, he was found guilty individually and in 5 cases, jointly with Salesman Mohinder Singh. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the impugned orders, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned Award and the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority. The Arbitrator passed the impugned Award, after taking into consideration the oral as well as the documentary evidence, CWP No. 5721 of 2008 -3- available on the record. The findings have been recorded against the petitioner, while considering each complaint separately. The petitioner was afforded full opportunity to rebut the evidence led by the respondent Society, and after considering the evidence available on the record, the impugned Award was passed. The Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority have dismissed the appeal and revision, by passing speaking orders, after providing full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that before initiating arbitration proceedings, a preliminary enquiry was conducted. But the findings recorded by the Arbitrator are contradictory in some aspects with the facts mentioned in the preliminary enquiry report, therefore, the Award passed by the Arbitrator is illegal being based on surmises and conjectures and is liable to be quashed. I do not find any force in this submission. In the preliminary enquiry report, the Assistant Registrar, who conducted preliminary enquiry, concluded the enquiry, while making the following observations : “Whatever may be the truth, but the facts and circumstances clearly indicate that cheating/fraud of money has been committed with the people. Most of the complainants are found to be belonging to Bairagi Caste or with such sections of the society, who are economically weaker and in each house, their brother or father is a loanee of the society. The assurance of the Secretary to adjust their loans appears to be the main reason of fraud. After completing the main formalities regarding record, it appears that money has been mis- CWP No. 5721 of 2008 -4- appropriated in a pre-planned manner. No concrete record and documents are available as proofs in the matter. Rather, the circumstances and statements are the proofs only. From the record produced at the time of enquiry, statements of concerned officials and complainants and the circumstances, it appears that after completing the main formalities in the record, the possibility of committing fraud by the Secretary and Salesman in collusion with each other with the amounts of the members of the society, cannot be denied. Detailed enquiry report is being forwarded to you for information and further necessary action.” It is the conceded position that after holding the said preliminary enquiry, the arbitration proceedings were initiated and after providing full opportunity to lead evidence to the petitioner, the impugned Award was passed by the Arbitrator on the basis of the evidence led by both the parties. The finding recorded in the Award is based on the evidence available on the record. Therefore, from the preliminary enquiry report, wherein it has been observed that no concrete record and documents were available as a proof in the matter, it can not be presumed that the Award passed by the Arbitrator was without any evidence and material. In my opinion, in the instant case, the Arbitrator has passed the impugned Award on the basis of material and evidence available on the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned Award and the orders passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority. CWP No. 5721 of 2008 -5- In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned Award/orders. Dismissed. September 07, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE