Buta Singh vs Additional Secretary, Cooperation, Punjab and Others

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner was appointed as a salesman with the respondent-Society on 21st November, 1978. In the year 1982 the Society had initiated proceedings for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 57,766/- against the petitioner. The dispute was referred to the arbitrator by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gurdaspur vide order dated 30th March, 1982. After examination of the matter, the Arbitrator held that the petitioner was liable to pay an amount of Rs. 23,319.92 along with interest at the rate of 15.5.%. A copy of this award is at Annexure P.1 with the writ petition. The petitioner''s appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27th January, 1992. A copy of this order is at Annexure P.2 with the writ petition. The petitioner filed a revision petition. It was dismissed by the Additional Secretary, Department of Cooperation, Govt. of Punjab (exercising the powers of the State Govt.) vide his order dated 7th August, 1998. A copy of this order is at Annexure P.4 with the writ petition.

The petitioner alleges that the Arbitrator, the Appellate and the Revisional Authorities have not appreciated the correct position. Thus, he prays that the orders, copies of which have been produced as Annexure P.1, P.2 and P.4 with the Writ Petition, be quashed.

Written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents Society only through its Liquidator. The averments made in the petition have been controverted.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the factual position has not been correctly appreciated by any of the authorities. Thus, the impugned orders are vitiated. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner has been controverted by Shri M.S. Bedi who has appeared on behalf of the 3rd Respondent.

Admittedly Harbans Singh was working as the Secretary of the Society. He had purchased fertilizer worth Rs. 23,160/- on 13th October, 1978. He had sold fertilizer worth Rs. 16,247/- on 16th November, 1978. He had further sold fertilizer worth Rs. 4,339/- on 25th November, 1978. The petitioner had admittedly been appointed on 21st November, 1978. The claim made on behalf of the petitioner is that the liability for the fertilizer sold prior to his joining service could not have been fastened on him. Thus, the petitioner could not have been called upon to explain the position with regard to the fertilizer which had been sold by Harbans Singh on 16th November, 1978. Similarly, it is claimed that even on 25th November, 1978 fertilizer worth Rs. 4,339/- was sold by Harbans Singh. If this be so, the liability in respect of this amount also could not have been fastened on the petitioner. It is not disputed that if these amounts are excluded the balance would be Rs. 2,574/- only.

Shri Bedi submits that entire fertilizer had been handed over to the petitioner. Thus, he was liable to account for it. This contention cannot be accepted. It is the admitted position that Harbans Singh had sold fertilizer worth Rs. 16,247/- on 16th November 1978. This fact has been specifically mentioned in the order passed by the Appellate Authority, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.2 with the writ petition. Despite making a note of this fact, the authority has not dealt with it appropriately.

The short question is - Did Harbans Singh sell the fertilizer and what happened to the amount of money collected by him? Was it deposited in the account of the Society? If yes, how could the petitioner be held responsible for it?

Shri Bedi admits that Harbans Singh had sold the fertilizer. However, the amount is not shown to have been deposited in the accounts of the Society.

Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, it appears that the matter has to be examined afresh. The impugned orders are set aside. The matter is referred back to the Assistant Registrar who shall appoint an Arbitrator or decide the matter himself. The complete record shall be examined before passing any order.

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.