Collective responsibility of managing committee members in co-operative societies is essential; individual indictment requires clear evidence of wrongdoing.

order.

14. PER CONTRA, Mr. Walimbe, learned Advocate appearing for the contesting Respondent No.6 would submit that what needs to weigh with the Court is the fact whether was it only the Respondent No.6 who was responsible for disbursement of loan or whether but all members of the Managing Committee played a decisive role in the said procedure. He would submit that verification of the loan application was the responsibility of the Managing Committee of the Society and it is only after the loan was verified by the Loan Committee and a resolution to that effect was passed, the procedure for disbursement of loan would commence. He would submit that the eight alleged members submitted verified documentation i.e. loan application form and certificate issued by the Head of Department for seeking the loan. He would submit that in the first place the documentation submitted by the alleged members was itself fabricated in as much as the certificate issued by the Head of Department wherein they were serving were fabricated and forged documents. He would submit that the loan application form and the said certificate was duly considered by the Managing Committee in respect of the eight alleged members for loan sanction. He would submit that it is only after this sanction was given that the role of disbursement of loan amount came into effect and Respondent No.6 as well as the other office bearer including the Executive President of the Society signed the cheques and loan files for disbursement of the loan. He would submit that all acts of the Managing Committee members including that of the answering Respondent was strictly in accordance with the resolution passed by the Managing Committee of the Society. He would submit that the said resolution authorised individual Managing Committee members including Respondent No.6 to sign the cheques for the loan amount sanctioned by the Managing Committee and therefore it cannot be held that the answering Respondent was solely responsible for the financial loss caused to the Society. He would submit that exoneration of the Executive President and the other members of the Society from any liability itself proves that discretion is writ large on the face of record while conducting the Enquiry under Section 88 of the said Act and in that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 14.01.2016 has been correctly passed and deserves to be upheld. He would therefore urge the Court to dismiss the present Writ Petition and uphold the order dated 14.01.2016 passed in Revision proceedings by the Revisional Authority.

15. I have heard Mr. Bandiwadekar, learned Senior Advocate for Petitioner; Ms. Nimbalkar, learned AGP for Respondent – State and Mr. Walimbe, learned Advocate for Respondent No.6 and with their able assistance perused the pleadings in the present case. Submissions made by Advocates has received due consideration of this Court.

16. At the outset, it is seen that Respondent No.6 was appointed as a member of the Managing Committee in the year 2000 and his tenure was upto 2005. The alleged act of disbursement of loan and consequentially appending signature on the cheques for disbursement are alleged to have been done on 13.01.2005 and 18.03.2005. It is not the Petitioner’s case that Respondent No.6 was not a member of the Managing Committee. Admittedly, Respondent No.6 was the Joint Secretary. Infact there were two Joint Secretaries. In so far as the alleged acts are concerned, it is extremely pertinent to note that all four cheques signed by Respondent No.6 were also countersigned by Mr. R.R. Bhogale, President of the Society. Record clearly reveals that Mr. R.R. Bhogale did not file his reply whatsoever in the enquiry proceedings nor did he submit any evidence whatsoever. Despite this the President