Hardip Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—The Assistant Registrar (Coop. Societies), Punjab as an Arbitrator, passed an order in connection with amount embezzled by the Secretary, Sat Paul, respondent No. 6 and held him liable for the repayment of the amount. At that time, he has not held that the amount is embezzled by the petitioners. The learned Arbitrator also observed that if the amount is not recovered from Sat Paul, it be recovered from present petitioners and other members of the Managing Committee. This order was challenged by petitioners No. 1 to 4 in appeal which was dismissed. Revision filed was also dismissed. We find from the orders passed by the Arbitrator as well as appellate and revisional authorities that no reason is shown as to how the petitioners, who are members of the Managing Committee, can be said to be responsible for the payment of amount, if Sat Paul fails to do. Reasons have to be attributed for passing an order of recovery or fastening liability on a particular person because from the reasons, it can be seen whether they actually liable or not, We, therefore, find it proper to remand the case to the Arbitrator qua the present petitioners only for deciding whether they were legally liable to pay the amount and if so, what are the reasons for their being liable.

As a result, this writ petition is partly allowed. The order of the Arbitrator, Appellate and Revisional authorities, qua the petitioners only, are set-aside and the case is remanded to the Arbitrator for deciding the liability of the petitioners, as mentioned in the earlier part of this order.

Petition partly allowed.