The discretion of the Inquiry Officer to seek information and the absence of an obligation to call for an explanation from the Petitioner were central to the Court's decision.

1 By the above petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has impugned the order dated 07.01.2013, the Inquiry Report dated 09.01.2014 and the order dated 22.05.2014. By the impugned order dated 07.01.2013, the Respondent No.1 – Commissioner for Co-operation & Registrar for Co-operative Societies (hereinafter referred to as 'Registrar') had appointed the Respondent No.2 – Shri Anil Chauhan, Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, to conduct an inquiry under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as “MCS Act”) in respect of the financial affairs of Respondent No.5 Bank. Respondent No.2 accordingly after conducting the inquiry, submitted the impugned Inquiry Report dated 09.01.2014 to the Respondent No.1 Registrar. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.1 Registrar by the impugned order dated 22.05.2014 appointed Respondent No.3 – Shri Shivajirao Pahinkar, Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies as the Authorized Officer under Section 88 of the MCS Act for the purpose of fixing the responsibility for the monetary losses caused to the Respondent No.5 Bank.

2. The Petitioner was the Director of the Respondent No.5 Bank, namely Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd., an Apex Co-operative Bank for the State of Maharashtra, from the year 1992 to 2010. It is the case of the Petitioner in the Petition that on or about 29.10.2014, the Petitioner received notice dated 16.10.2014 from Respondent No.3 to submit an explanation under Section 88 of the MCS Act & Rule 72(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'MCS' Rules). The Petitioner, by his letter dated 30.10.2014 requested Respondent No.3 to supply copies of the various documents, a copy whereof was also sent to the Respondent No.5 Bank. Further communications were exchanged between the Petitioner, Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.5 Bank. The Petitioner thereafter received a fresh notice dated 30 April 2015 from the Respondent No.3 to submit explanation under Section 88 of the MCS Act and Rule 72(2) of the MCS Rules. The Petitioner sought copies of documents and pointed out that unless and until the documents are made available, he would not be in a position to give his explanation and requested the Respondent No.3 to extend the date for submitting his explanation. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent No.5 Bank has forwarded to him copies of the impugned order dated 7th January 2013, the impugned Inquiry Report dated 9 January, 2014 and the impugned order dated 22 May 2014 and 'some other papers' and it was for the first time on 27 May 2015 that the Petitioner received copies of the impugned orders dated 7 January, 2013 and 22 May, 2014.

3. I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.5 Bank.

4. Though several assertions/pleas have been made/raised in the Petition, the only contention urged before the Court by the learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner is as regards violation of principles of natural justice. It is firstly submitted by the learned Counsel that under sub Rule (4) of Section 71 of MCS Act the Respondent No.2 Inquiry Officer was required to obtain an explanation from the Petitioner (being a former Director of Respondent No.5 Bank) prior to submission of the Inquiry Report. However, no such explanation was called for from the Petitioner. Hence, there was violation of principles of natural justice. The second submission urged on behalf of the Petitioner is that under Rule 71(5) of MCS Rules, the Petitioner was required to be granted an opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the impugned order dated 22 May 2014 by the Respondent No.1 Registrar (appointing the Respondent No.3 as an Authorized Officer for the purpose of fixing the responsibility of the monetary losses caused to the Respondent No.5 Bank under Section 88 of the MCS