SHAJI P.CHALY,J. - (1.) The captioned writ petitions are substantially and materially connected, filed by the President and Director Board members of Sreekantamangalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.974, challenging Ext.P19 notice issued under Section 68(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, [for short, 'the KCS Act'] requiring the petitioners to show cause as to why surcharge as proposed under the notice should not be imposed on the petitioners. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to deliver a common judgment. Facts discernible from W.P.(C) No.19653 of 2017 are relied upon in order to dispose of both the writ petitions.
(2.) First petitioner is the President and petitioners 2 to 7 are the members of the Board of Directors of the society concerned. According to the petitioners, consequent to the change of Government, there were deliberate attempts to supersede the committee, and also to ensure that a new managing committee is not elected before the expiry of the term of the existing committee. When election to the managing committee became inevitable in view of the judgment of this Court, with the intention of preventing the members of the previous managing committee from contesting the election, 2nd respondent issued a notice under Section 32, proposing to supersede the managing committee. Thereupon, the 1st petitioner approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No.40796 of 2016, and as per the interim order dated 21.12.2016, all further proceedings were stayed, and the said writ petition is pending consideration.
(3.) After the society purchased a property for housing its new branch, the 2nd respondent ordered an enquiry into the different aspects of the purchase, on the sole ground that the purchase had been effected without obtaining permission from the Department. According to the petitioners, only when notice was received, the managing committee became aware of the fact that no action was taken by the then Secretary to get the approval for the purpose. Therefore, immediately on receipt of Ext.P6 notice, a memo was issued to the Secretary, seeking his explanation. In the enquiry constituted under Section 65, the vendor of the property as well as the petitioners gave evidence, both oral and documentary. According to the petitioners, quite contrary to the evidence before the enquiry officer, the enquiry officer submitted a report finding that an amount of Rs.14,40,000/- expended for purchasing the property is a loss to the society, and therefore, the same should be recovered from the managing committee and the employees responsible.;