Negligence simpliciter is not sufficient to visit the officer of a co-operative society with proceedings under S.68. The conduct should be wilful, implying culpability with an element of deliberateness or mens rea involved in the conduct or omission, which resulted in the loss.

The petitioner challenges the order Ext. P13A passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies under S.68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (the Act) and its confirmation in appeal by the proceedings Ext.P17 of the Government, the order Ext.P13A had previously been confirmed by the Government by their order Ext.P15 which was challenged in a Writ Petition O.P.No. 3195 of 1986 in this court. This court was of the opinion that government had not dealt with the matter properly in the light' of the principles laid down in decisions like Sundaram Iyer v. Dy. Registrar, Co-op. Societies AIR 1957 Madras 634, Subbamal v. Tenkasi Co.Op. Urban Bank, AIR 1977 Madras 92 and Sathyamangalam Co-op. Urban Bank Ltd. v. Dy. Registrar of Co-op. Society, (1980) 2 MLJ 17. Ext.P15 was accordingly quashed and government was directed to consider the petitioner s appeal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in the judgment. The order Ext.P17 was thereafter passed affirming the view taken earlier in Ext.P15. The petitioner had therefore filed this original petition challenging Exts.P1SA and P17.

2. The petitioner was the Chief Promoter and Director of the Thiroor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (the Bank for short), and its President since 1964. The Bank is a Co-operative Society registered under the Act. The managing committee of the society had passed resolutions from time to time sanctioning payment of conveyance allowance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 100/- from 1-1-1976, rs.150/- from 1-1-1978, Rs.250/- from 1-7-1979 Rs.300/- from 7-1-1981 and Rs.450/- from 1-7-1982. The petitioner had drawn the conveyance allowance accordingly at the rates sanctioned amongst others, during the period from 2-2-1982 to 31-10-1983.

3. The Society had purchased a car for. its purposes. But no driver was appointed. The vehicle was being driven by the petitioner himself. The vehicle was available for use between 1-2-1982 and 31-10-1983.

4. The budgets presented for the approval of the General Body of the bank every year from 1978-79 to 1984-85 had made provision for the amount of conveyance allowance payable to the petitioner at the prevailing rates. The General Body had not raised any objection to the payment at any time. The payment of the conveyance allowance had thus the approval of the General Body of the Bank.

5. It is stated that in the years 1983 and 1984, some disgruntled elements in the Bank started creating trouble. Though the petitioner and his team got re-elected to the managing committee in 1983, they were not allowed to assume charge, alleging defects in the election procedure. Instead, an administrative committee was appointed to take charge of the affairs of the Bank. No fresh election was held, which prompted the petitioner to file O.P.No. 560 of 1984 in this court and get direction to conduct the election. The petitioner and his panel were successful in this election as well and assumed office. The petitioner was the President of the Bank when the original petition was filed.

6. Some members of the Bank had filed petition before the first respondent Joint Registrar alleging mal administration by the managing committee headed by the petitioner. A resolution was also passed at a meeting of the General Body held on 25-11-1984 to disallow the conveyance allowance due to the petitioner from 1-2-1982 to 31-10-1983. One of the irregularities alleged in the petition above mentioned was regarding the payment of conveyance allowance to the petitioner. On receipt of this petition, the joint Registrar directed the Assistant Registrar (Vigilance), Trichur to conduct an enquiry. I must note here that no enquiry under section 65 of the Act was ordered. On the basis of the report of the Assistant Registrar, the first respondent issued notice Ext.P13 dated 24-6-1985 directing the petitioner to show cause why an order should not be passed under section 68 sur