The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of services and the decisions of the competent authorities under the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 were based on valid reasons and supported by the evidence.

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1.9.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.1938 of 2010, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner (appellant herein), was dismissed, (for short ‘impugned judgment’).

2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the case are that on 19.5.1989, the petitioner was engaged as salesman/commission agent by respondent No.4-Society on 50% commission basis. However, in General House of respondent No.4-Society held on 3.6.2001 (Annexure P-1), taking note of the audit report for the year 1999-2000, wherein it was pointed that an amount of Rs.56115.60 paise is due from petitioner Nikku Ram, took a decision to afford one month time to the petitioner for recovery of the aforesaid amount, reserving its right to take legal action against him.

3. In the aforesaid meeting of General House, working of petitioner was also discussed, wherein Members of the House were informed that work and conduct of the official, named above, has not been found satisfactory in the last few years. It was also brought to the notice of the House that the petitioner has not lifted the `Ration’ (essential commodities) for the last three months and he misused/misappropriated an amount of Rs.56115.60 paise. It was also informed that apart from not lifting essential commodities for last three months, he has also misappropriated the mid-day meal of the school children. Accordingly, keeping in view the misuse/misappropriation of an amount of Rs.56115.60 paise, coupled with aforesaid irregularities committed by the petitioner, General House of the respondent No.4-Society took unanimous decision to terminate his services with immediate effect.

4. Petitioner being aggrieved with decision of termination dated 3.6.2001, filed representation before the Secretary Co-operation, to the Government of Himachal Pradesh (respondent No.1), who forwarded the same to the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Palampur, District Kangra, (respondent No.3) which was treated as revision petition under Section 94 of the H.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1968 (for short, `Act’).

5. Respondent No.3 after receipt of the representation (Annexure P-2), summoned both the parties and, after perusal of the record made available to him, held that the termination of the petitioner is in public interest.

6. It appears that, during the pendency of the aforesaid revision petition before respondent No.3, competent authority had already initiated surcharge proceedings under Section 69 of the Act (Act No.3 of 1969), on the basis of which, an enquiry under Section 69(1) of the Act was entrusted to one Shri Desh Raj Chaudhary, Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Baijnath, vide Office Order endst.No.Coop-6-14/95(Steno) 2076- 80, dated 9.5.2002, to inquire into the alleged mis-appropriation and mis-use of the funds by the present petitioner as well as another person; namely Sansar Chand (Ex-Secretary of the respondent No.4-Society). Competent authority vide order dated 8.6.2004 (Annexure P-3), on the basis of documentary evidence available on record, held the present petitioner liable for recovery of an amount of Rs.15.507/- with further direction to the petitioner as well as other person Shri Sansar Chand to deposit the same within a period of 60 days, failing which Society shall be entitled to recover interest at the rate of 15% alongwith 2% penal interest.

7. Present petitioner being aggrieved with the termination order vide resolution dated 3.6.2001, order dated 21.8.2002 passed by respondent No.3 on the representation and order dated 8.6.2004 passed by respondent No.3 on the revision petition as well as surcharge proceedings under Section 69 of the Act filed an appeal before the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, H.P., Dharamshala (Respondent No.2) which was dismissed by him vide order dated 3.4.2007 (Annexure P-4).

8. Petitioner further made an attempt to ass