K.N.Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner was employed as a Co-operative Superiors in the U. P. Co-operative Union Limited, Lucknow, which is a registered Apex Co-operative Society. The petitioner went on deputation to the Nabiganj Kshetriya Sahkari Samiti Limited, Nabiganj, Mainpuri, where be worked as Secretary-cum-Manager. On 4-11-1967 the petitioner was suspended by the Deputy Registrar, U.P. Cooperative Societies, Agra. The petitioner filed a writ petition it this Court challenging the legality of this order but the petition was ultimately dismissed as no one appeared to press the petition. Certain charges were framed against the petitioner which were enquired into by a Committee consisting of Sri Rafneshwar Prasad Srivastava, Deputy Registrar, Sri Devendra Pal Singh, Chaiiman, District Co-operative Bank, and Sn Tej Pratap Singh, Chairman, U. P. Co-operative Union. By an order dated 17-5 1971 communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 28-5-1971, the following punishments were awarded to the petitioner:- 1. that the charge of suspension shall continue till he rejoins duty and for the period of suspension he would be paid the subsistence allowance ; 2. that three increments should be withheld ; and 3. that a ,warning entry be made in the character roll of the petitioner. Apart from the aforesaid punishments the petitioner was asked to pay certain sum of money to the U. P. Co-operative Union failing which he shall be relieved of his post. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 17-5-1971 to the extent requiring him to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,071.87 and the consequential penal clause.
(2.) The validity of the constitution of the Committee, which enquired into the charges levelled against the petitioner, has neither been raised in the petition nor pressed by the petitioner. The only grievance put forward was that -The amount said to have been mis-spent by the petitioner was the subject-matter of an arbitration proceeding in which the Arbitrator gave an award against the petitioner on 12-1-1970 but it was under challenge and consequently in tie Petitioner impugned order no direction could be given for depositing the amount within a specified time. The grievance is unjustified. The Committee, which enquired into the various charges against the petitioner, was competent to consider the charge relating to misspending or m/s application of the money belonging to the Society. The Committee found the charges proved against him it could validly, therefore, issue a direction that the amount illegally spent by the petitioner should be paid by him to the Society to whom the money belonged. Before the impugned order was passed, the Arbitrator bad also fixed the liability of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid amount. Since the petitioner was an employee of the U P. Co-operative Union Limited, the Committee was competent to issue a direction to him.
(3.) We may, however, make it clear, that if the amount awarded by the Arbitrator has been realised by the Society, the petitioner would not be called upon to pay that amount twice over.;