JUDGMENT - Per R.K. JOSHI, J.:---The petitioner, an Ex-Managing Director of the Poona Contractors Co-operative Bank Ltd., has impugned the order made by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunal, Bombay, on 10th April, 1970 which in turn confirmed the order of the District Deputy Registrar, directing apportionment of the total costs of Rs. 825/- and saddling the petitioner with Rs. 550/-. The balance of Rs. 275/- was ordered to be paid by the Manager Mr. Gumaste, but he does not seem to have questioned the correctness of this order. The few facts leading to these proceedings, stated briefly, are as follows: The petitioner was all material times working as the Managing Director of the above-said Bank and Mr. Gumaste was the Manager. As the Bank suffered losses, complaints reached the ears of the District Deputy Registrar and an enquiry was directed under section 83(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The District Deputy Registrar, on conducting the enquiry concluded that the petitioner was mainly responsible for the losses incurred by the Bank and to a certain extent the Manager Mr. Gumaste had contributed his mite. The Enquiry Officer assessed the fees of the enquiry at Rs. 825/- and further recommended that out of this amount the petitioner should pay Rs. 550/- and the balance of Rs. 275/- be saddled on Mr. Gumaste. On receipt of this report the District Deputy Registrar issued a show-cause notice under section 85 of the Act as to why the costs of the enquiry be not recovered from both the above-said persons. The petitioner put in his objections questioning the correctness of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and maintained that he was not at all liable for the costs. His plea was over ruled and the impugned order was made. Against this order the petitioner approached the Tribunal which confirmed the same. Before dwelling on the merits and the legal as parts, reference may be made at this stage to the interlocutory order made by Desai and Savant JJ. on 12th February, 1974. When this special civil application came up for hearing before the learned Judges, they were informed that an enquiry under section 83 of the Act was pending against the present petitioner and Mr. A.R. Apte was appointed to conduct such enquiry. on 12th February, 1974. When this special civil application came up for hearing before the learned Judges, they were informed that an enquiry under section 83 of the Act was pending against the present petitioner and Mr. A.R. Apte was appointed to conduct such enquiry. It was further submitted that in case the order of costs goes unchallenged, under Rule 58 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961, serious consequences would ensue with the result that the petitioner would be, for ever, debarred from being a member or officer bearer of this bank; therefore, it was urged that pending the result of the proceedings under section 88, this matter be stayed. This submission prefailed with the learned Judges and they directed that the proceedings under section 88 of the Co-operative Societies Act by concluded as quickly as possible and the matter should come up before the Court on the adjourned date 22nd April, 1974. Pursuant to the directives given by the Court Mr. apte, the authorised officer, acting under section 88(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, expedited the enquiry and exonerated the petitioner of all the charges levelled against him. He further directed the parties to bear their own costs. The parties before Mr. Apte were the bank figuring as an applicant, the petitioner as opponent No. 1 and Mr. Gumaste as opponent No. 2. The net result is that the petitioner is acquitted of all the accusations levelled against him. Before adverting to the relevant provisions, a passing reference as to how the proceedings were initiated and what was the root cause, would need a reference at this stage. It seems that certain members o the Poona Contractors Co-operative Bank Ltd. Complained about this Bank and pursuant to the complaints the records were scrutinised by the competent authorities who found some substance in the grievance; therefore, the enquiry officer made a report which resulted in setting the ball in motion. The charges against the petitioner were mainly of embezzlement in respect of a considerably large amount and utilising the same in the name of accommodating some of his close relatives. It is needless to refer to the allegations made against Mr. Gumaste. The charges against the petitioner were mainly of embezzlement in respect of a considerably large amount and utilising the same in the name of accommodating some of his close relatives. It is needless to refer to the allegations made against Mr. Gumaste. On getting this report the District, by his order dated 3rd January, 1967, started further Deputy Registrar proceedings it clear that on receipt of the making complaints from the members of the Bank regarding advance of loans to the office bearers and members in contravention of the By-laws and on inspection of the records, a statutory enquiry under section 83(1) of the Act was called for. As the Enquiry Officer had reported that the petitioner was responsible and had committed numerous irregularities mentioned therein (Ex. 3) he was served with a show cause notice why the entire costs of the enquiry should not be recovered from him. In response to this notice the petitioner put in appearance and had his own say, which, it is needless to add, was to clear himself of all the accusations. The District Deputy Registrar, as observed a little earlier, directed the Petitioner and Mr. Gumaste to pay the costs and apportioned them in the manner stated above and the said order was confirmed by the Tribunal. This takes us on to certain relevant provisions contained in the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Section 83(1) under which the enquiry was instituted, inter alia lays down that the Registrar may of his own motion, himself, or by a person duly authorised by him in writing in his behalf, held an enquiry into the constitution, working and financial conditions of a society. The other sub-sections prescribe the procedure and sub-section (4) further says that the result of any enquiry under this section shall be communicated to the society whose affairs have been investigated. Section 84 which speaks of the inspection of books of indebted society, is not of much relevance in these proceedings. Next comes section 85 which has a bearing on the costs of enquiry and the inspection. It runs thus : "85. Section 84 which speaks of the inspection of books of indebted society, is not of much relevance in these proceedings. Next comes section 85 which has a bearing on the costs of enquiry and the inspection. It runs thus : "85. (1) Where an inquiry is held under section 83 or a inspection is made under the last proceeding section, the Registrar may apportion the costs, or such part of the costs, as he may think just, between the society, the members or creditors demanding the inquiry or inspection, the officers or former officers or former officers and the members or past members of the society." The provision further lays down that no order of appointment of the costs shall be made under this section, unless the society or persons or the legal representative of the deceased person liable to pay the costs thereunder, has or have been heard, or has or have had a reasonable opportunity of being heard; secondly, the Registrar has to state in writing the grounds on which the costs are apportioned. Section 86 deals with recovery of costs, and they could be recovered on an application by the Registrar to a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the place where the person against whom the order is made carries on the business or resides. Section 88 which is the final of stage of such proceeding, defines the powers of the Registrar to assess the damages against delinquent promoters etc. The relevant portion lays down that where in the course of an enquiry under section 83 the Registrar is satisfied on the basis of the report made by the person authorised to make an enquiry under the said section, that any person who has taken any part in the organisation or management of society, or past or present officer of the society has, within a period of five years prior to the date of commencement of enquiry, misapplied or retained or became liable or accountable or any money property of the society, r has been guilty of misfeasence or breach of trust, he may frame charges against such person and after giving reasonable opportunity may determine and direct him to contribute such sum to the assets of the society by way of compensation in regard to the misapplication, retention, misfeasence or breach of trust. Sub-section (2) further says that the Registrar or the person authorised under sub-section (1) in making any order under this section, may also give a suitable direction for payment of costs, or any part thereof as he thinks just. The effect of the Rules applicable to persons who have been penalised under this section are somewhat drastic. Rule 58 contained Chapter VI of the Maharashtra Co-operative Society Rules, 1961, disqualities a member from holding membership of a committee. Sub-rule (1) says that no person shall be eligible for appointment or election as a member of the committee of a society, if he in default to any society in respect of any dues from him, or has been held responsible for payment of costs of enquiry under section 85. Pausing for while here, may it be emphasised that even responsibility to pay the costs of an enquiry under section 85, disqualities a member permanently. Rule 71 prescribes a procedure ad principles for the conduct of enquiry and inspection, and Rule 72 speaks of the procedure under section 88. The grievance of the Petitioner all along was that he was in no way answerable to the imputed misappropriation. The Enquiry Officer seems to have framed numerous charges against him, his entire approach as we read the order dated 18-9-1969 appears to be basically and fundamentally wrong. While delivering his order under section 85 regarding the apportionment of the costs of enquiry held under section 83 of the Act, the learned District Registrar observed in the penultimate paragraph of his judgment as follows : "But the charges as communicated to them under the office letter No. RGN/20278/ENQ of 67 dt. 3-6-1967 are so grave that they have not succeeded in disproving them. In fact those charges include personal transaction, transactions they carried on independently and at their own responsibility." Pausing for a while here, we may note that the learned District Deputy Registrar has missed the elementary principles. The charges were of criminal misappropriation or misfeasence and the burden in all such cases would be upon the complainants. The complainant have to bring home the charges to delinquent and not vice versa. The observation reproduced above in unmistakable terms cannot that the burden is cast heavily upon the delinquent and he is called upon to disprove the charges levelled against him. The complainant have to bring home the charges to delinquent and not vice versa. The observation reproduced above in unmistakable terms cannot that the burden is cast heavily upon the delinquent and he is called upon to disprove the charges levelled against him. This is an error writ large on the face of the record and the learned officer has missed the elementary principles of law. The learned Members of the Co-operative Tribunal with respects, do not seems to the have considered this aspect at all. They largely emphasised the factual aspect of serious irregularities or accommodations of the various relatives of the Petitioner and in all probability, being morally satisfied, which is not the legal requirement, seem to have been obsessed with the misdeeds of the Petitioner and on some such reasoning they upheld the order of appointment of costs. In the concluding paragraph, the learned Member observed that the district Deputy Registrar has in clear terms stated that from the enquiry report it was proved that the appellant was mainly responsible for the loss incurred by Bank and in those circumstance he was liable to contribute Rs. 550/ towards the costs of the enquiry. Therefore, in their opinion the order of the learned District Deputy Registrar cannot be said to be without any basis. They do not seems to have applied their mind to be this aspect of the burden being wrongly thrown on the delinquent to establish is his innocence. When the matter was being enquired into under section 88 by Mr. K.R. Apte, the Enquiry Officer appointed under the said section, on referring to the various charges covering 41 transactions, he has in un-mistakable terms concluded that the Petitioner was not liable and accountable for the money of the bank covered by these items. In his opinion, the petitioner could not be held responsible in any manner for any of the alleged defalcations or mismanagement of the affairs of the bank. When the final verdict is given by the authority acting under section 88, the Enquiry Officers finding as well as the order o the appointment of the costs would stand considerably shaken. It is true that normally the order of the apportionment of costs should not be taken made under section 85 of the Act unless the enquiry under section 88 is complete except under exceptional circumstances. It is true that normally the order of the apportionment of costs should not be taken made under section 85 of the Act unless the enquiry under section 88 is complete except under exceptional circumstances. However, we do not propose to lay down any broad Principle that unless the enquiry under section 88 is complete, no order regarding the apportionment of the costs of an enquiry held under section 83 could be made under section 85. Confining ourselves to the proceedings before us, we emphasis at the costs of repetition that the very approach of the District Deputy Registrar in finding the petitioner guilty of the various charges and saddling him with costs was patently erroneous. On this very score we are disposed to set aside the order impunged. Before concluding, a reference need to be made to couple of submission made by Mr. Kamerkar appearing for the bank. The bank officer Mr. Veer in para 2 of his affidavit in reply made it clear that the respondent bank is advised that is some circumstances even the society in respect of whose affairs an enquiry is held under section 83, may be rendered liable to bear the costs thereof. The primary object of the affidavit is to protect the interests of the society and o keep the record straight in so far as the facts are concerned. Next, he submitted that it was on the complaint of some of the members that the enquiry was initiated suo motu and the bank was not at all interested or responsible for setting the ball in motion. Under these circumstances, it should not be saddled with costs. The submissions are not only fair, but are amply fortified, the record referred to in the foregoing paragraphs. In these singular circumstances we are inclined to allow the Petitioner without any order as to costs throughout. In the result, the rule is made absolute. The order for payment of costs made against the petitioner is set aside. No order as to costs throughout. -----