J.L. Gupta, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was working as the Secretary of the Khera Gajju Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Limited (hereafter to be referred as the 'Society'). The Society raised a dispute for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 11,582.96 against the petitioner. This dispute was referred to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies for arbitration. The petitioner pleaded that he had given an amount of Rs. 16,000/ - to Amar Singh, the former Vice President of the Society. He even produced a receipt to support the submission. On this basis, the petitioner claimed that he was not liable to pay the amount. After consideration of the matter, the Arbitrator found that the petitioner had withdrawn an amount of Rs. 6746.02 from the accounts of the Society. Thereafter he had withdrawn another amount of Rs. 4836.96. Thus, he was liable to pay the amount of Rs. 11,582.96. A copy of the award dated December 18, 1991 has been produced as Annexure P2. Aggrieved by the award, the petitioner filed an appeal. It was dismissed vide order dated November 13, 1995. Still not satisfied, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Government. It was heard by the Joint Secretary Cooperation. Vide order dated November 10, 1998, the revision petition was dismissed. Copies of the orders passed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities have been produced as Annexures P3 and P4 respectively. The petitioner alleges that these orders are illegal. Thus, he prays that the award as well as the orders passed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities (copies of which are at Annexures P2 to P4) be quashed.
(2.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The claim made by the petitioner has been controverted. Mr Gumam Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the proceedings initiated for arbitration and recovery are vitiated as the Society could have proceeded under the provisions of Section 54 of the Punjab Co -operative Societies Act, 1961 (in short to be called the 'Act') for recovery of the amount embezzled by the petitioner and it was not entitled to raise a dispute under Section 55 of the Act. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a Single Bench judgment of this Court in The Rukanpura alias Khui Khera Co -operative Agricultural Service Society v. Pritam Singh and Ors. .
(3.) SECTION 54 of the Act provides as under: - 54. "Surcharge. (1) If in the course of an audit inquiry, inspection or the winding up of a co -operative society it is found that any person who is or was entrusted with the organisation or management of such society or who is or has at any time been an officer or an employee of the society, has made any payment contrary to this Act, the rules or the bye -laws or has caused any deficiency in the assets of the society by breach of trust or wilful negligence or has mis -appropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property belonging to such society, the Registrar may of his own motion or on the application of the committee, liquidation, or any creditor, enquire himself or direct any person authorised by him by an order in writing in this behalf, to inquire into the conduct of such person; Provided that no such inquiry shall be held after the expiry of six years from the date of any act or omission referred to in this sub section. (2) Where an inquiry is made under Sub -section (1), the Registrar may, after giving the person concerned, an opportunity of being heard, make an order requiring him to repay or restore the money or property or any part thereof, with interest at such rate, or to pay contribution and costs or compensation to such extent, as the Registrar may consider just and equitable.";