Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. Nikku Ram vs State Of H.P. & Ors on 1 September, 2015
Author: Rajiv Sharma
Bench: Rajiv Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 1938 of 2010.
Reserved on: 25.8.2015
Decided on: 1.9.2015.
Sh. Nikku Ram ......Petitioner.
.
Versus
State of H.P. & ors. .......Respondent.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes.
For the petitioner: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Parmod Thakur, Addl. AG with Mr.
Neeraj K. Sharma, Dy. AG for the respondent-State.
of
Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.
The petitioner was appointed as Salesman by respondent No. 4- rt Society on 50% commission basis. A sum of Rs. 17,080.60 and Rs. 13,932.00 was recoverable as advance/balance stock. Respondent No. 4- Society terminated the services of the petitioner vide resolution dated 3.6.2001. The petitioner made representation against his termination before the competent Authority. The same was decided by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Palampur on 21.8.2002. Thereafter, surcharge proceedings were also commenced against the petitioner under Section 69 of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), since the petitioner had embezzled Rs. 31,012.60. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies directed the petitioner and one Sh. Sansar Chand to repay/refund the embezzled/misappropriated/mis-utilized amount vide order dated 8/6/2004, within 60 days from the date of order, failing which, they were liable to pay interest @ 15% and 2% penal interest. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Registrar, Co-operative 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:51:03 :::HCHP 2 Societies, against the order dated 8.6.2004. The Addl. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, dismissed the appeal on 3.4.2007. The petitioner filed further appeal against the order dated 3.4.2007 before the Special Secretary (Co- operative) bearing Case No. 47 of 2007. It was subsequently converted into .
revision petition under Section 94 of the Act. The same was dismissed by the Special Secretary (Co-operative) on 20.4.2010. Hence, this petition.
2. Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the petitioner was not heard before the passing of order dated 3.6.2001. He of then contended that his client has not embezzled the amount rather it was the responsibility of Sansar Chand, being the Secretary to repay the amount. He lastly contended that on 3.6.2001, quorum was not complete. On the rt other hand, Mr. Parmod Thakur, Addl. Advocate General and Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate, for the respective respondents, have supported the orders passed by the competent Authorities below.
3. The petitioner was engaged, as noticed hereinabove, on 19.5.1989. He was terminated on 3.6.2001. He was issued notices vide resolutions dated 24.6.2000, 11.8.2000 and 12.4.2001. He has not filed any reply to these show cause notices/resolutions.
4. It is also evident that as per the byelaws No. 23 of the Society, the quorum of general house is 1/3rd or 30, whichever is less. In the present case, more than 60 members were present and thus, the quorum was complete.
5. The representation made by the petitioner has been decided by passing a speaking order by the Assistant Registrar on 21.8.2002, after affording him reasonable opportunity of being heard. The surcharge proceedings initiated against the petitioner and Sansar Chand were also ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:51:03 :::HCHP 3 strictly in conformity with Section 69 of the Act. The petitioner has admitted his liability as per Annexure R-I. The Asstt. Registrar, Co-operative Societies has given specific findings that the petitioner as well as Sansar Chand have misutilized/misappropriated and embezzled the amount of the Society in .
connivance with each other and have caused loss to the Society. The order passed by the Addl. Registrar, Co-operative Societies dated 3.4.2007 is a speaking order. The contention raised by the petitioner with regard to the non-compliance of principles of natural justice, has specifically been dealt of with by him. The submission raised by the petitioner that the quorum was not complete on 3.6.2001 has also been specifically dealt with by the Addl. Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The surcharge proceedings were passed on rt the basis of enquiry/audit report of the Society. The petitioner has filed an appeal, as discussed hereinabove, against the order dated 3.4.2007. The appeal filed by the petitioner was converted into revision and the same was also not maintainable since the petitioner had already availed the remedy of appeal. The orders dated 3.6.2001, 3.4.2007 and 20.4.2010 are in conformity with the statutory provisions of the Act.
6. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.
September 01, 2015, ( Rajiv Sharma ),
(karan) Judge.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:51:03 :::HCHP