SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 608

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.
Raj Kishore Dhaon - Petitioner
Versus
Registrar Co-Operative Societies U.P. Lucknow & Ors. - Respondents
Writ - C No. 1007386 of 2009
Decided On : 24-03-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Anurag Kumar Singh.

Headnote:

U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 - Sections 68(1) and 68(2) - Employees of Cooperative Societies - Imposing surcharge - Whether order of surcharge could be passed against members of Committee of Management for loss suffered by society in carrying out trade or business concerned - Held, So far as second submission of Standing counsel that petitioner, while posted as Secretary of Society has failed to get resolution annulled also appears to be incorrect as Section 128 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act does not impose any obligation on secretary of Society - Only Registrar can exercise power Section 128 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act for annulling resolution passed by society - It is clear that payment has not been made pursuant to resolution - Payment has also not been made during tenure of petitioner in district - On contrary payment has been made in pursuance to resolution even circular letter - Petition is Allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.C. Rai, learned Counsel for the State/respondent as well as perused the record.

2. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 14.10.2009 passed by U.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Lucknow by which surcharge, in exercise of power under Section 68(2) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (in short hereinafter referred to as 'Act') has been imposed upon the petitioner and he has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.33,56,479/- along with interest. The appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed vide order dated 17.4.2022 which is also impugned in this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 19.6.1986 the Registrar, Cooperative Societies U.P. directed for payment of ex-gratia to employees of Cooperative Societies. This direction of the Registrar was only for Financial year 1984-85 however the same continued to be paid to the employees thereafter. On 27.4.1995 while the petitioner was posted as Secretary/General Manager, District Cooperative Bank Limited, Lakhimpur Kheri when Committee of Management of the Bank passed a resolution for payment of ex-gratia for financial year 1994-95 to its employees. Thereafter it appears that on 10.05.1995 Registrar, Cooperative Societies U.P. issued an order directing to Secretary General Manager, U.P. Cooperative Bank not to provide facility of bonus or ex-gratia to the employees. This order dated 10.5.1995 was received in the office of District Cooperative Bank Limited. Lakhimpur Kheri on 02.06.1995. The petitioner has not taken any action for implementation of resolution dated 27.04.1995 and no payment of ex-gratia was made to the employees for financial year 1994-95 or till the time the petitioner was posted at the Society concerned. In the meantime on 04.08.1995 the petitioner was transferred to Moradabad. The petitioner proceeded on leave on 09.08.1995. Thereafter vide order dated 19.8.1995, order dated 04.08.1995 was amended and the petitioner stood transferred to Hardoi as Secretary/ General Manager, District Cooperative Bank Limited, Hardoi. On 24.08.1995 the petitioner was relieved from District Cooperative Bank Limited, Lakhimpur Kheri and one Surendra Singh Sengar took charge of Secretary/General Manager on 14.10.1995. The Committee of Management of the Bank, while Surendra Singh Sengar, Secretary/General Manager was posted as Secretary of the Society, passed a resolution while considering the circular of the Registrar dated 10.05.1995 and proceeded to pay ex-gratia to the employees citing the reason that it was being paid in previous years and the Bank was in profit ignoring the fact that there is clear prohibition in the resolution of the Registrar dated 10.5.1995. The audit objection was raised in the special audit of the Bank pertaining to financial year 1995-96 and 1996-97 and Surendra Singh Sengar was held responsible for the payment of ex-gratia in 1995-96 and 1996-97 pertaining to the corresponding two previous years (Annexure-10). Thereafter an enquiry under Section under Section 68(1) of the Act was conducted and the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer which holds Surendra Singh Sengar responsible for making payment of ex-gratia and causing the entire loss to the Bank of an amount of Rs. 78,42,167/-. Although the petitioner was not held responsible for causing loss to the Bank in the body of the enquiry report. However the name has been inserted by making overwriting/interpolation by hand in the typed enquiry report (Annexure 11). It is worthwhile to mention that the then Committee of Management of the Bank was also held responsible in the enquiry under Section 68(1) of the Act. On 23.01.2006 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner however, incorrect figures were mentioned against the name of the petitioner and the petitioner was given show cause notice for payment of bonus in 1996-97 and payment of ex-gratia in 1996-97 wh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top