IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:03.12.2025 The Ambala Central Coop. Bank ......Petitioner Versus Joint Secretary to Government Haryana and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Mr. S.S. Antal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Udit Garg, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

Mr. S.S. Dalal, Advocate for respondent No.3.

None for respondent No.4.

*****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI J.(Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the impugned orders (Annexures P-2 and P-

4) passed by the respondents.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while giving the brief facts of the present case, submitted that respondent No. 4, namely Shri Mahabir Singh, was working as the Secretary of respondent No.3-The Adhoya Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd. He was appointed by the petitioner-Bank and was serving as a Secretary of the aforesaid cooperative society. The petitioner is a District Level Cooperative Bank, which placed the services of respondent No. 4 with the aforesaid society. Multiple allegations of embezzlement and fraud were levelled against aforesaid respondent No.4 and since a dispute arose, the matter was referred to the competent authority/Arbitrator under Section 102 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) which provides for adjudication of the matter by an Arbitrator. Thereafter, an award was passed by learned Arbitrator vide Annexure P-2, whereby respondent No. 4 was held guilty for embezzlement of some amount. He further submitted that there were about 20 similar cases of embezzlement against respondent No.4 and Annexure P-2 pertains to one such instance.

3. Learned counsel submitted that a perusal of the aforesaid order (Annexure P-2) would show that after holding respondent No.4 guilty, it was further observed that in the event the embezzled amount is not recovered from respondent No.4, the same shall be recovered from the present petitioner, which is the District Level Cooperative Bank. He further submitted that there is no provision of law under which the petitioner-bank can be fastened with liability because it was a case of embezzlement by a person who was working as a Secretary in respondent No.3–society. Even if, assumingly, respondent No.4 was appointed by the petitioner-Bank and was its employee, still no liability could have been fastened upon the petitioner-Bank, as there is no provision for fastening such liability because the concept of the doctrine of vicarious liability would not apply in a case where the allegations and the order were pertaining to embezzlement of the amount, as such acts are done in personal capacity and not while discharging the duties of the Cooperative Bank. He submitted that in this way, after the aforesaid order was passed, wherein, in alternative, the amount was to be realized from the petitioner- Bank and the Bank filed a statutory appeal against the said order under Section 114 of the Act, which was decided on 28.02.1990 (Annexure P- 3). In the appeal, all the 20 awards were also mentioned and a perusal of the same would show that all the awards were pertaining to embezzlement committed by respondent No. 4.

4. The appeal filed by the petitioner-Bank was allowed on 28.02.1990 by the Deputy Registrar (Ind.), Cooperative Societies, Haryana, Chandigarh while exercising appellate jurisdiction, by observing that the petitioner-Bank has a distinct identity of its own and is in no way responsible for the misdeeds committed by the Secretary, who is respondent No. 4 and therefore the involvement of the petitioner-Bank was uncalled for. The aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Authority was assailed by respondent No. 3–Society by way of a revision petition before Joint Secretary to Government of Haryana, Cooperation Department, who set aside the