The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the society's Secretary, misconduct by the president, unauthorized dealings with the bank, and misappropriation of funds under the provisions of the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act and Rules.

JUDGMENT :

Biswanath Rath, J.

This writ petition involves challenge to the judgment passed by the Member, Cooperative Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar in T.A. No.30 of 2001 as appearing at Annexure-1 confirming the order dated 6.10.2001 involving the dispute case No.907/97-98 a proceeding under Section 68 of the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1962 and Rule 70 of the Orissa Cooperative Societies Rules, 1965.

2. Short background involved in the case is that the Fire Service Employees Credit Cooperative Society is a society governed under the Orissa Cooperative Societies Act 1962. The petitioner was the president of the said society during the period from 15.09.1993 to 3.09.1997. The Society advances credit facility for consumer durable goods for purchase of domestic articles in favour of its members as per the practice procedure. The loan amount was to be rooted through Sundergarh District Cooperative Society Bank and the orders of purchase of the consumer articles were sent to the concerned firm before purchase. The firm is required to supply the domestic articles on receipt of cheques from the lending bank. The recovery is made by installment from the salary of the lonees with intimation from the society to the Disbursement Section of the Rourkela Steel plant. Facts further reveal that in the process, a large number of lonees have been sanctioned loans. It is observed that the petitioner alongwith R.S. Singh, S.N. Pradhan, I. Tiriki J. Toppo were all sanctioned loans. It is alleged that the consumer goods were not received by them due to certain illegal and intentional tactics of the petitioner. It is also alleged that in spite of petitioner having not been authorized to issue deduction slip from the salary of the aforesaid loanees to the authority of the Rourkela Steel Plant, the petitioner issued flimsy deduction slip for deduction of the installment amount from the salary of the loanees and effected deductions in a specified format prescribed by the authority of the Rourkela Steel Plant. During the audit enquiry of the society for the year 1995-96, an amount of Rs.85,273.73/-was assessed as the liability on the petitioner towards the society. Petitioner having refused to make the recovery after even serving a notice on the petitioner, the opposite party instituted a Dispute Case bearing No.907/97-98 before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society. By order dated 1.10.2010 the Asst. Registrar Co-operative Society passed the award against the petitioner to the tune of Rs.80,694/-together with interest @ 15% per annum. Petitioner preferred an appeal registered as T.A. No.30/01 before the Member, Cooperative Tribunal, Orissa. The appeal was also decided against the petitioner confirming the award passed by the Asst. Registrar Cooperative Societies.

3. Assailing the orders vide Annexures-1 & 2, Sri Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following grounds:

“(1) The award was not passed on the date fixed and therefore such award is not valid in the eye of law.

(2) There is deliberate ignorance of the enquiry report submitted by the Sub-Asst. Registrar Cooperative Society and the same has been illegally overlooked without assigning any reason.

(3) There is no consideration of the reconciliation of the account statement in respect of the member loanees.”

It is alleged that rejection of the grounds taken by the petitioner having not supported with any reasons, both the impugned orders suffer. Sri Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner thus prayed this Court for interference with the impugned orders and setting aside the same.

4. Despite sufficiency of notice and appearance of a set of counsel on behalf of the private opposite parties, nobody appears on behalf of the opposite parties at the time of hearing. Accordingly, the matter is decided only hearing the counsel for the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration the grounds taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds, the Dispute Case No.907/97-98 i