Point of Law: Rest of nature of dispute to be referable to Register in the given context of this case, will govern the entire situation. The recovery proceedings initiated under Section 102 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006 was rightly held to be maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

Subhasis Dasgupta, J.

1. The impugned order dated 24th March, 2021 passed by the learned Arbitrator, Hooghly Range, Officer at Hooghly in connection with a dispute Case No.01 of 2020/2021, under Section 102(1) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006, holding the dispute case to be maintainable after rejecting the prayer challenging the maintainability of proceeding, is subject matter of challenge in this revisional application.

2. Adverting to a copy of petition seeking for quashment and/or annulment of the dispute case instituted against the petitioner, in dispute case No. 01 of 2020/2021, being page 108 of the instant revisional application, Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee, learned advocate representing the petitioner submitted that initiation of a recovery case by opposite parties upon resorting to Section 102(1) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006 was bad in law having no sanction of law, on the ground that disciplinary action taken by the management of the Co-operative Societies/opposite parties involved in this case, against a paid employee, though subsequently dismissed from service, could never be regarded as concerning the management, or business, or affairs of a co-operative socieity.

3. Mr. Mukherjee, submitted that an erroneous decision had been reached mechanically by the order impugned, holding that the dispute had been arisen between the plaintiff/society and the petitioner, as a member of the society, and thus the provision of Section 102 (1)(a) of the West Bengal Co-operative Society Act 2006 had been illegally invoked. Mr. Mukherjee further contended that petitioner having been removed from the service, as per decision of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, the instant recovery case ought not to have been instituted before the Registrar, as it was not permissible to be instituted against the petitioner, who had already been held convicted in a disciplinary proceedings, and already terminated from service.

4. Per contra, Mr. Pabitra Charan Bhattacharyya, learned advocate representing opposite parties, supporting the order impugned submitted that relevant provisions had been appropriately resorted to for the recovery of Rs.36,95,407/- from petitioner, who had allegedly defalcated the said amount during his tenure, while discharging his function as a Manager of Dewanbheri Uttarpara Samaby Krishi Unnayan Samiti Ltd.. The disciplinary proceeding was subsequently initiated against the petitioner, after the petitioner was dismissed from service on 07.07.2020.

5. Mr. Bhattacharyya taking recourse to the written statement, filed by the petitioner against the recovery proceedings initiated under Section 102 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 2006, submitted further that in para 5 of the written statement, defendant/petitioner had admitted that he had been a member of the plaintiff/society/opposite party at the relevant point of time. Mr. Bhattacharyya further argued that the alleged defalcation of huge amount had been made by the petitioner not only being a manager of the Co-operative Society, but was also a member of society, relatable to a dispute concerning the management, or business, or affairs of the Co-operative Society, as appearing in Section 102 of the Act. The opposite parties were duly permitted or authorised to take out recovery proceeding against the petitioner, who admittedly not only was the manager of the concerned Co-operative Society, but was also a member of the Society at the relevant point of time, though he might have been lawfully terminated from service upon initiation of a due disciplinary proceedings, for the defalcation of huge monetary amount touching the management, or business, or affairs of the Co-operative Society, Mr. Bhattacharyya contended. The recovery proceeding, according to Mr. Bhattachayya was very much maintainable, and there left nothing requiring any interference by this Court.

6. The solitary point raised by both