Rajinder Pal Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

M.L. Singhal, J.—The petitioner has challenged the orders dated 12.1.1995 (Annexure P.5) and 10.5.1993 (Annexure P.4) passed respectively by the Joint Secretary (Appeals) Cooperation Department, Punjab, and Joist Registrar (Farming) Cooperative Societies Punjab. He has also challenged the award dated 3.8.1990 passed by Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jagraon and has prayed for quashing of the impugned orders as well as the award.

In the writ petition, it has been alleged that the petitioner was the Secretary of the Jodhan Co operative Agricultural Service Society Limited between the years 1979 and 1985 and is presently working as Salesmen in that Society. It is stated that while working as Secretary-cum-Salesman, the petitioner was incharge of the stock of fertilizers and wheat seeds. He was forced to submit his resignation and was reinstated in December, 1984 after the expiry of the tenure of the then Managing Committee. Thereafter, he remained custodian of the stocks till February, 1985. Shri Gurmukh Singh held the charge of stocks of fertilizers, after the petitioner. It is stated that due to storage of stocks of fertilizers and wheat seeds for a long time in the godown, the same got deteriorated. On 21.12.1989, the Society raised a dispute and sought the recovery of Rs. 13,452.79 on account of deterioration of the fertilizer and the wheat seed. This dispute was referred to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jagraon for arbitration u/s 56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). Respondent No. 4 gave award on 3.8.1990 holding the petitioner liable for the disputed amount and directed him to pay that amount with interest at the rate of 17 per cent The petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, who accepted the same and set aside the award of the arbitrator vide Annexure P.2. Against the order of the Deputy Registrar, the respondent No. 5 filed revision petition before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. That was transferred to the Additional Registrar (General) Cooperative Societies Punjab. The revisional authority remanded the case back to the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana, who once again accepted the appeal on 31.7.1992 and set aside the award of the arbitrator. The Society again filed revision petition. This time, it was submitted before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patiala who transferred it to the Joint Registrar (Farming), Co operative Societies, Punjab. The revisional authority accepted the petition filed by the Society on 10.5.1993 and set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar. The petitioner went in revision before the Joint Secretary (Appeals), Cooperative Department, Punjab, who dismissed the same on the ground that second revision was not competent. The petitioner has, challenged the impugned orders and the award on the ground that the revision petition filed against the appellate order of the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana, should have been heard by the Registrar and his delegates, namely, Joint Registrar (Farming) Co operative Societies, Punjab, had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the revision petition preferred by respondent No. 5. The petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the Joint Secretary on the ground of error of law apparent on the face of it. He has challenged the reference of the dispute on the ground of bar of limitation. According to the petitioner, no dispute could have been raised by the Society after more than four years of his handing over the charge to Shri Gurmukh Singh. The petitioner has pleaded that the award passed by the arbitrator is illegal because the liability of Shri Gurmukh Singh has altogether been ignored.

Respondent No. 5 has contested the petition by seating that the petitioner voluntarily resigned from the post of Secretary on 6.10.1984 and while submitted his resignation letter, he had agreed to pay dues to the Society which may be found against him. According to respondent No. 5, the dispute related to the period prior to 6.10.1984 when he was working as Secretary. He was reemployed with the Society and his service was terminated on 27.3.1991. This was challenged by the petitioner by way of appeal before the Deputy Registrar, Co operative Societies, Ludhiana, who dismissed the same on 9.1.1992. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was accepted by the Joint Registrar (Farming) Co-operative Societies, Punjab. There after, the Society filed CWP No. 9953 of 1993 which was withdrawn on 23.11.1993, in view of the compromise arrived at between the Society and the petitioner undertook to pay the amount specified in the arbitration award. Keeping this in view, the Administrator of the Society took a lenient view and allowed him to rejoin as Secretary of the Society. However, the petitioner went on challenging the award which led to the passing of the impugned orders. Respondent No. 5 has also pleaded that the petitioner was incharge of the stocks of the fertilizer and the wheat seed which deteriorated because of the negligence of the petitioner in the performance of his duties.

Respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 have also filed separate reply but it is not necessary to make detailed reference to the averments made in that reply because more or less it is on the same line on which reply has been filed by respondent No. 5.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy Advocate General Punjab and the learned counsel for respondent No. 5, and have gone through the record of the case.

Section 56 of the Act of 1961 lays down that (1) the Registrar may, on receipt of the reference of dispute u/s 55, (a) decide the dispute himself, or (b) transfer it for disposal to any person who has been invested by the Government with powers in that behalf, or (c) refer it for disposal to an arbitration; (2) the Registrar may withdraw any reference transferred under Clause (c) of that sub section and decide it himself or refer the same to any other arbitrator for decision; (3) the Registrar or any other person to whom a dispute is referred for decision under this Act may, pending the decision of the dispute, make such interlocutory order as he may deem necessary in the interest of justice.

It is, thus, clear that the Registrar may decide the dispute himself or he may transfer it for disposal to any person vested with the powers of the Registrar by the Government or refer it for disposal to one Arbitrator. Award, Annexure P.1, was delivered by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jagraon (Arbitrator) in favour of the Society. Rajinder Pal Singh went in appeal which was heard by Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana, who vide Annexure P.2 set aside the award Annexure P.2 of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab who sent the same for disposal to the Additional Registrar (General) and the Additional Registrar (G) remanded the case and ordered re-hearing of the case. The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ludhiana heard the appeal after remand and set aside the award dated 3.8.1990, Annexure - P.1 and exonerated the petitioner of the responsibility as the stock had changed many hands. Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, heard the revision filed by the Society and vide order Annexure P.4 accepted the revision of the Society and held the petitioner liable for deterioration in the stocks of fertilizers. It was negatived that Gurmukh Singh, Salesmen-cum-Cashier remained incharge (factual) of the stocks of fertilizers. Actual custody of the stocks was with the petitioner though in record Gurmukh Singh was shown as in-charge as Salesman- cum-Cashier. Petitioner did not accept he decision. of the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab made vide Annexure P.4 dated 10.5.1993 and went in revision to the Joint Secretary (Appeals), Cooperation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh u/s 69 of the Act of 1961.

Section 68 of the Act lays down that an appeal shall lie under this section (a) if the decision or order was made by the Assistant Registrar to the Deputy Registrar, (b) if the decision or order was made by the Deputy Registrar to the Registrar or such Additional Registrar or Joint Registrar as may be authorised by the Registrar in this behalf, (c) if the decision or order was made by the Deputy Registrar to the Registrar or such Additional Registrar or Joint Registrar as may be authorised by the Registrar in this behalf, (d) if the decision or order was made by the Registrar, to the Government, (e) if the decision or order was made by any other person, to the Registrar or such Additional. Registrar or Assistant Registrar as may be authorised by the Registrar in this behalf.

Section 69 of the Act lays down that the State Government and the Registrar may, suo motu or on the application of a party to a reference, call for and examine the record of any proceedings in which no appeal u/s 68 lies to the Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed and if in any case it appears to the Government or the Registrar that any such decision or order should be modified, annulled or revised, the Government or the Registrar as the case may be, may, after giving person affected thereby an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as it or he may deem fit.

Section 69 clearly vests the revisional power in the State Government where order sought to be revised/passed under appeal has not been passed by the State Government or in other words, where the order sought to be revised passed in appeal has been passed by the Registrar or his delegates, and the power of revision in cases where the appellate order is not passed by the Registrar, but by an authority subordinate to him, not in the capacity of the delegatee mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Act, would lie in the Registrar.

In Brij Lal v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1973 PLJ 462, It was held that the appellate authority will not exercise the revisional power against its own orders passed in appeal, but an authority higher than the appellate authority is competent to exercise the revisional powers even in the case where the first appeal has been provided under Sub-section (1) of Section 68 of the Act. If an appeal is preferred u/s 68 of the Act to the State Government, the State Government will have no revisional power u/s 69 of the Act against the order passed in appeal, and in case an order in appeal u/s 68 of the Act has been passed by the Registrar, the Registrar has no power of revision against the order passed in appeal. According to Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act before the revisional powers are made use of, either by the State Government or the Registrar, the first question that will be determined is if an appeal lies u/s 68 against that particular decision or order. If the reply be in the affirmative, then the person, who is desirous of invoking the revisional powers, will be directed to go and file an appeal against that decision or order to the authorities specified in Section 68(2) of the Act. If no such appeal is competent, then the Registrar or the State Government will exercise their revisional powers. If on appeal the decision has been taken or the order has been passed by the Registrar or his delegatee then the revision will lie to the, State Government. If, on the other hand, the order has been made by any of the authorities subordinate to the Registrar, then in that case the Registrar will have the revisional powers.

In the case in hand award was given by the assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jagraon on 3.8.1990 (Annexure P.1) Appeal was filed by the petitioner on 15.10.1990 u/s 68 of he Act which was accepted by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana (vide order Annexure P.2). In revision which was heard by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana, award passed by Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Jagraon was set aside, and the petitioner was exonerated the responsibility. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ludhiana, could not have heard revision against the appellate order passed by him. In this case another Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab heard the revision filed by the Society and vide Annexure P.4 held that the claim of the Society was genuine. No further revision lay before the Joint Secretary, Cooperation exercising the powers of the Government against the order Of Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Patiala passed in revision.

Vide notification No. 1669-C-V-78/6450, dated 21.3.1978 powers of the Registrar Co-operative Societies are delegated to all Additional RCS, JRCS, DRCS and ARCS under different Sections and Rules issued by the Development Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Punjab, Co operation Department, DRCS was promoted as JR and, therefore, the Society requested for the transfer of the case lo any other JRCS. This is a second revision which was not maintainable before the Joint Secretary, Cooperation (Appeals), Punjab, Chandigarh, as JRCS had decided the case u/s 69 of the Act. DRCS had decided the case u/s 68(2)(a) of the Act. JCRS had decided this case u/s 69 of the Act and as such second revision was not competent.

In addition to our finding that the order passed by the Joint Secretary (Appeals) does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, we find no substance in the plea of the petitioner that he is not liable to pay the amount awarded by the arbitrator. A look at Annexure Rule 1 and Rule 2 shows that the petitioner had unequivocally agreed to make the payment of the amount which may be found due against him. In the compromise entered, into by him with the Society which ultimately led to the withdrawal of the writ petition filed by the Society, he gave an unequivocal undertaking to pay the amount in terms of the ward. Having done so, it was not open to the petitioner to have questioned the award by filing various proceedings before the appellate authority and the Joint Secretary (Appeals). By his own conduct the petitioner has dis-entitled himself from any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.