Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - (1.) HAS the Respondent State of Punjab erred in holding that Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 were not liable to repay the amount which was due from Respondent No. 5? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this case.
(2.) A few facts, as relevant for the decision, may be briefly noticed. Shingara Ram, Respondent No. 5, was working as a Secretary of the Petitioner -Society. Proceedings for recovery of different amounts, which had allegedly been misappropriated by him, were initiated. Ultimately, on June 26, 1995 the Assistant Registrar, who had been appointed as arbitrator, held that an amount of Rs. 30,000/ - along with interest at the rate of 14 -1/2% per annum was to be recovered from Shingara Ram. While giving this award, he further ordered that if the amount is not recovered from Shingara Ram, it shall be recovered from the members of the Managing Committee, viz., Respondent Nos. 6 to 9. Similarly, in another case, a separate award had been given. Copies of the two are at Annexure P3 and P4 with the writ petition. This order was challenged by the members of the Managing Committee. It was pleaded that they could not be punished for the sins of Shingara Ram, especially when they had taken every step for the recovery of the money. Ultimately, vide order dated September 9, 1997, the revision petition filed by them was accepted, and it was ordered that the amount be recovered from the surety, if any. A copy of this order is at Annexure P2. The relevant findings, as recorded by the Deputy Secretary, who heard the revision petition, is in the following terms: I have gone through the contents of the orders of the appellate authority as well as the arbitration. I have heard the counsel of both the parties. The impugned arbitration and appellate orders though hold the ex -secretary responsible for the embezzlement, yet the Petitioners have been made liable for the recovery. It is a fact that Petitioners as responsible members of the managing committee had taken sufficient precautions and have made all efforts to make the recovery and also dismissed the ex -secretary from the services of the society by following due prescribed procedure. The reference has also been made by the Petitioners under Section 55 of the Act. The extraneous pressure on the officers of the Cooperation Department cannot be ruled out. Keeping in view of the above facts, it is apparent that the ex -secretary is responsible for the embezzlement and if the recovery is not possible from him the same may be recovered from his surety, if any. Accordingly, I accept the revision petition and case is disposed of." The Petitioner -Society filed an application for review of this order. The matter was considered by the Additional Secretary, Cooperation, Punjab. Vide order dated January 20, 2000, it was held that the application was not maintainable. Resultantly, the review petition was dismissed. A copy of this order is at Annexure P1. Aggrieved by the two orders, the Petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that these be quashed. Notice of motion was issued. Mr. M.C. Berry, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, appears for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. M.S. Bedi has put in appearance on behalf of Respondent Nos. 6,8 and 9. No one has appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 5 despite service.
(3.) COUNSEL for the parties have been heard.;