An officer's authority ceases upon replacement; thus, a report submitted by a replaced officer is void regardless of their knowledge of the replacement.

JUDGMENT:

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. These petitions raise common issues of fact and law. It is therefore appropriate to decide them together by a common judgment.

2. These petitions arise from proceedings initiated under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The core issue that calls for determination is limited but important. It is whether an Authorised Officer who stands replaced by another officer, after the proceedings under Section 88 have been closed for preparation of the report due to complaints of denial of hearing, can still submit a report only because he claims that he was unaware of the order of his substitution. The answer to this issue goes to the legality of the proceedings themselves.

3. The relevant facts are stated hereafter for clarity.

4. On 30 October 2018, Respondent No.3 initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 83(1) of the Act and appointed Respondent No.5 as the enquiry officer to examine the records of the society for the years 2012 to 2016. On 1 December 2018, Respondent No.3 expanded the scope of enquiry to cover the period up to 30 October 2018. On 15 February 2019, Respondent No.5 issued notice to the managing committee members calling for their reply. The society submitted its reply on 6 March 2019. On 1 August 2019, Respondent No.5 filed his report under Section 83(1) noting financial loss and legal lapses. Based on this report, Respondent No.3 on 7 October 2019 appointed Respondent No.6 as the Authorised Officer for conducting enquiry under Section 88 and for submitting his report. Respondent No.6 thereafter issued notices to the concerned committee members, who filed their replies. On 31 May 2021, Respondent No.6 framed charges under Rule 72(3) of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961. Petitioner Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 submitted their replies on 20 September 2021. On 14 February 2022, Respondent No.3 replaced Respondent No.6 and appointed Mr. Sunil Khochre as the new Authorised Officer due to delay in submission of the report. In spite of his replacement, Respondent No.6 on 28 February 2022 proceeded to prepare a report under Section 88 and on 1 March 2022 submitted that report to Respondent No.3.

5. On 13 October 2022, Respondent No.3 issued a certificate under Section 98 holding the managing committee members, including the petitioners, liable for an amount of Rs.49,45,673. The petitioners challenged the orders passed under Section 83 dated 30 October 2018, 1 December 2018 and the report dated 1 August 2019 by filing Revision Application No.35 of 2023. They also filed Revision Application No.36 of 2023 challenging the recovery certificate under Section 98. They further filed Appeal No.27 of 2023 challenging the report dated 28 February 2022 along with an application for condonation of delay.

6. The case of the petitioners is that Respondent No.2 dismissed Revision Application Nos.35 and 36 of 2023 and Appeal No.27 of 2023 by order dated 29 January 2024 without affording them proper hearing. Due to this, the report under Section 83, the report under Section 88 and the certificate dated 13 October 2022 all came to be upheld. The petitioners therefore seek relief in these petitions.

7. Learned Advocate Mr. Bhole for the petitioners submitted that Petitioner Nos.2, 6 and 7 were not members of the managing committee during the period 2012 to 2018. He submitted that despite this undisputed fact, they have been held liable for the alleged loss without any basis under the Act. He submitted that the Authorised Officer did not examine material documents including the General Body Resolution an