K.J. Shetty, C.J. - (1.) Petitioner is co-operative bank. It has employed some persons who had retired from the services of the Reserve Bank and the U.P. Co-operative Bank. The petitioner thought perhaps that retired persons are more experienced for handling the banking affairs. The District Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies thought, however, otherwise. He called upon the petitioner by a notice under Section 38 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 to remove those persons. He also issued a notice under Section 68 of the said Act, for surcharging the management in respect of the payment made to those persons. The petitioner has challenged the validity of these notices in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) During the pendency of the proceedings, the District Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies has withdrawn the notice issued under Section 38 of the said Act. It is, therefore, unnecessary to go into the validity of the said notice.
(3.) The only question that survives for consideration is that in view of the withdrawal of the notice under Section 38, whether the proceedings taken under Section 68 could continue. In our opinion, there is no question of continuing the surcharge proceedings in view of the withdrawal of the notice issued under Section 38. It may be stated that the surcharge proceedings are not in regard to any misappropriation of the funds of the petitioner bank. They relate to the salary paid to the persons who have been employed by the petitioner-bank for the period during which they rendered services. Since their employment is not under dispute for the present, the salary paid to them cannot be recovered under Section 68. In our opinion, the proceedings under Section 68 are wholly misconceived, and accordingly, the notice (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed. Petition allowed.;