CWP Nos.5282 and 16691 of 1989 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Civil Writ Petition No.5282 of 1989 Hakam Singh & Ors. ...Petitioner(s) v. Commissioner (Appeal), Jalandhar Division & Ors. ...Respondent(s) 2. Civil Writ Petition No.16691 of 1989 Sukhdev Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. Commissioner (Appeal), Jalandhar Division & Ors. ...Respondent(s) Date of decision: December 14, 2010. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Ms. Jagdeep Bains, Advocate, for the petitioners (CWP No.5282 of 1989) Shri Harit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP No.16691 of 1989) and for respondent No.5 in CWP No.5282 of 1989. Shri G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the official respondents. CWP Nos.5282 and 16691 of 1989 -: 2 :- Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. (Oral): By this common order, two civil writ petitions, viz, CWP No.5282 of 1989, filed by Hakam Singh and others, and another bearing CWP No.16691 of 1989 filed by Gurdev Singh shall be decided together. CWP No.5282 of 1989 Prsent writ petition was filed by the three sons of Lal Singh, namely, Hakam Singh, Gurdev Singh and Bachittar Singh. Their father Lal Singh was working as a Cashier with the Khokhar Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited which was later on amalgamated with Naga Sarai Cooperative Agricultural Service Society – respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 – Society sought arbitration on the ground that both Lal Singh, Cashier and Gurdev Singh son of Karnail Singh owed a sum of Rs.15176.20 to the Society. The Society relied upon audit report for the year ending 30.6.1972 to hold that Lal Singh and Gurdev Singh s/o Karnail Singh had to pay the outstanding amount to the Society. The arbitrator gave its award dated 9.5.1979, copy at Annexure P-1. A perusal of the Award Annexure P-1 reveals that Lal Singh admitted his liability. The Award reads as under:- “... Shri Lal Singh also admitted in his statement that out of the amount in dispute a sum of Rs.7033.20 is due from Gurdev Singh. From this also, it is proved that the remaining amount is due from Shri Lal Singh. ...” The ground taken by the petitioners is that their father had cleard all the arrears in his life time and, thus, nothing was due, whereas, in reply thereto, in the written statement filed on behalf of the Assistant Registrar, cooperative Societies, Muktsar, on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, it has CWP Nos.5282 and 16691 of 1989 -: 3 :- been stated that no such plea was raised by Lal Singh that no amount was due from him. Lal Singh had accepted the award. It will be apposite to reproduce the following portion of the written statement:- “ xi) Contents of this sub para are irrelevant. The petitioners are raising this plea for the first time and Shri Lal Singh did not say anything about these amounts during his life time when he used to appear before the Arbitrator and the Appellate Authority.” It is stated that Lal Singh expired in the year 1988. Amount of Rs.8092.45 was sought to be recovered from the estate of Lal Singh. It is stated that out of the three sons of Lal Singh, who had filed the instant writ petition, Hakam Singh and Bachittar Singh have expired in the year 2005 and 2010 respectively. Lal Singh was fastened with liability on the basis of the audit report. I have perused the Award and the written statement. It is a case where Lal singh has admitted his liability. The revisional authority has also recorded as under:- “... I find that impugned order passed by the learned arbitrator is very detailed and it has recorded the admission by Shri Lal Singh also. ...” A glance at the award, Annexure P-1, also reveals as under:- “... Shri Lal Singh also admitted in his statement that out of the amount in dispute a sum of Rs.7033.20 is due from Gurdev singh. From this also it is proved that the remaining amount is due from Shri Lal Singh. ...” In view of the admission made by Lal Singh accepting his liability, CWP Nos.5282 and 16691 of 1989 -: 4 :- the writ Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioners, especially when the arbitrator has given an award against Lal Singh and the appeal and revision petition filed by the successors of Lal Singh were dismissed. Hence, I find no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs. CWP No.16691 of 1989 This writ petition has been filed by Gurdev Singh son of Karnail Singh. So far as Gurdev Singh is concerned, he has not made any admission. Award was passed on the basis of the admission made by Lal Singh. It has also come in the award that when the award was passed, Gurdev Singh was not present. Since Gurdev Singh has not made any admission, he cannot be made liable to pay the amount relying upon the admission made by Lal Singh. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Mohar Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2001(1) PLJ 179, wherein it was held that audit report itself is not sufficient to fasten the employee with the liability. So far as petitioner Gurdev Singh is concerned, he has been held liable only on the basis of audit report and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. Therefore, only upon a solitary incriminating circumstance, i.e., the audit report, he cannot be fastened with the liability as qua the same, evidence was lacking. Hence, the award qua Gurdev Singh along with orders passed by the Appellate/Revisional Authority are quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] December 13, 2010. Judge kadyan