P. Sundaram vs The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society

K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.—The petitioner seeks for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondent in his proceedings dated

18.3.96 and the consequential order of the respondent dated 21.5.97.

The following facts are sufficient for the disposal of the writ petition. The petitioner was employed as Assistant in Dharmapuri District Central

Co-operative Bank and he was subsequently working as a Secretary in the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Bangalore from 3.11.86 to

13.06.90.

Surcharge proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and others u/s 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 for the

alleged loss caused to the society, by the petitioner and others, who were also proceeded against along with the petitioner. By order dated 18.3.96

of the respondent, the petitioner, along with others, were found to be responsible for the loss suffered by the Society and a sum of Rs.17,600 was

fixed as the amount recoverable from the petitioner.

No further action was taken by the petitioner by filing an appeal u/s 152 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 before the Co-

operative Tribunal, and hence, the award against him became final. Consequently, the respondent issued a notice on 21.5.1997 for recovery of the

amounts due from the respective individuals as per the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed the above writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions.

i) The petitioner was only a Secretary and therefore, he alone cannot be proceeded against for recovery of the loss. As a Secretary, he cannot be

held responsible for the loss caused by others.

ii) Having initiated proceedings against the petitioner u/s 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, it is not open to the respondent to

prosecute the petitioner by way of criminal proceedings under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

After hearing both sides, and the facts stated above, it is seen that as against the order of the Deputy Registrar u/s 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-

operative Societies Act, no appeal has been filed by the petitioner before the Co-operative Tribunal and therefore, the award of the respondent

requiring payment of a sum of Rs.17,600/- as against the petitioner by order dated 18.3.96, has became final and executable. The order dated

21.5.97 is only a consequential order calling upon the petitioner to pay the amount due along with the interest. The amount due from the petitioner

is calculated to be Rs.40,036/- as on the date of the said notice. Not having filed any appeal and having allowed the award against him to become

final, the petitioner cannot raise any defence now as against the impugned proceedings calling upon him to deposit the said amount.

The contention that a secretary cannot be held liable for the loss cannot be agitated in the writ proceedings as if it is only a question law. How

far the petitioner is responsible for the loss is a question of fact which had become final in the proceedings u/s 87 of the Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that no criminal proceedings could be initiated as against the petitioner after initiating surcharge

proceedings. The said contention is also not sustainable. The said issue is not the subject matter of the writ petition.

That apart, there is no bar for the respondents to proceed against the petitioner, under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The surcharge

proceedings relate to the loss caused to the Society by the conduct of the petitioner and others under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act.

The criminal proceedings are based on the alleged misconduct of the petitioner and others in the discharge of their public duties and there is no bar

for the respondents to take criminal proceedings against the petitioner subject to the evidence before the criminal court.

In the result no grounds are made out to grant the relief sought for in the above writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.