B. C. VERMA. J. ( 1 ) SATYANARAYAN Sinha, deceased father of petitioners deveshwar Singh and Sureshwar Singh, was in the year 1973-74 President of the Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Ambikapur. It was alleged that because of his gross negligence the bank suffered a loss of Rs. 15. 000/- and, therefore, surcharge proceedings were initiated against him under Sectioa 63 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act. While those proceedings were pending, Satyanarayan Sinha died on 30-9-1977. It appears from the record that his two sons who are the petitioners here were brought on record as his legal representatives. They filed their objection, vide Annexure R-1 dated 26-7-1979. In that objection, they only stated that they are not liable for any act of his late father and, therefore, they be discharged. The enquiry then proceeded further and the Assistant Registrar submitted his report. This report was considered by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, bilaspur, who by his order dated 2-11-1981 held that the Society suffered a loss of Rs. 15. 000/- on account of the gross negligence of Shri Satyanarayan sinha inasmuch as he did not supervise maintenance of the vehicle which was used for a considerable period without maintaining any log book. The two sons of late Shri Satyanarayan Sinha (petitioners herein) were made liable for this amount. Against this order, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Board of Revenue. That appeal has been dismissed by order Annexure-C dated 29-3-1982. These two orders have been challenged in this petition. ( 2 ) IT was first contended that the petitioners could not be made liable for any act of their father committed as President of the Co-operative Society and the liability, therefore, could not be fastened on them. This contention is devoid of substance in view of express provision contained in Proviso to section 63 (2) of the Co-operative Societies Act. This contention is devoid of substance in view of express provision contained in Proviso to section 63 (2) of the Co-operative Societies Act. That provision is as follows :" (2) If, on enquiry made under sub-section (i), the Registrar is satisfied that there are good grounds for an order under this sub-section, he may make an order requiring such person, or in the case of a deceased person, his legal representative who inherits his estate, 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 : provided that no order under this sub-section shall be made unless the person concerned is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter: provided further that the liability of a legal representative of the deceased shall be to the extent of the property of the deceased which has come to the hands of such legal representative. In view of this provision, Satyanarayan Sinha's sons were admittedly his legal representative can well be made liable for any act of their deceased father committed in capacity of the President, Co-operative Society. As stated above, the petitioners were duly noticed. Apart from filing the objection (here Annexure R-1) they did nothing more and for reasons best known to them, did not participate in the enquiry. For this lapse on their part, they cannot be helped. They, therefore, cannot complain of any want of opportunity. We also do not agree with the learned counsel, for the petitioners that on the death of Satyanarayan Sinha, Surcharge proceedings abated for to us it is clear from the provision of Section 63 (2) of the act that the legal representative can be made liable. One thing, however, appears to have been missed by the Joint Registrar as also the Board of revenue. They failed to notice that this liability of the legal representative would not extend beyond the property of the deceased in their hands. To that extent, the impugned orders require modification. " ( 3 ) SHRI V. S. Sroti, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged that late Shri Satyanarayan Sinha could be made liable only on a finding of gross negligence or misconduct and an absence of any such finding, he could not be made liable. To that extent, the impugned orders require modification. " ( 3 ) SHRI V. S. Sroti, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, urged that late Shri Satyanarayan Sinha could be made liable only on a finding of gross negligence or misconduct and an absence of any such finding, he could not be made liable. As a proposition of law, the submission is sound. However, from the impugned orders, the gross negligence and misconduct of late shri Satyanarayan Sinha can easily be inferred. The petitioners have not filed on record the charges on the basis of which enquiry was proceeded against late Shri Sinha. However, the discussion and the findings of the two lower Tribunals clearly show that Shri Sinha failed in his supervisory duty to see that the log book of the vehicle was properly maintained so that pilferage of the vehicle could be prevented. It has, therefore, been rightly inferred that this omission to perform his duty amounts to gross negligence. It is this negligence which has caused loss to the Society. Shri Sinha, therefore, has rightly been held guilty of gross negligence. ( 4 ) SHRI V. S. Sroti also urged that it is the primary duty of the Manager of the Sociely to see that the log book was properly maintained. Learned counsel urged that the Manager has wrongly been exonerated. This fact, however, would not in any way absolve Shri Satyanarayan Sinha who, as we have stated above, has rightly been tound guilty of gross negligence in performing his duty as President of the Co-operative Society. This argument, therefore, does not advance the petitioners' case at all. ( 5 ) SHRI Sroti referred to a decision reported in Nanhelal v. Assistant registrar [ air 1970 MP 39 ]. In that decision, the rinding has been that the petitioner was not surcharged for any act of his, which may have itself resulted in loss to the Society. Instead, finding is that he was charged for the loss arising from acts of misappropriation and misconduct of the employees of the Society. We have shown above that the petitioner's deceased father Shri Sinha initially failed to perform his manifest duty of not supervising the use of the vehicle in reckless disregard of the consequences affecting the property of the Society. The decision, therefore, is not attracted to the facts of the present case. We have shown above that the petitioner's deceased father Shri Sinha initially failed to perform his manifest duty of not supervising the use of the vehicle in reckless disregard of the consequences affecting the property of the Society. The decision, therefore, is not attracted to the facts of the present case. ( 6 ) NO other point was urged. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, the petition fails and is dismissed. It is made clear that the petitioners' liability shall be only to the extent of the property of the deceased Satyanarayan Sinha in their hands. There shall be no order as to costs. Security amount be refunded to the petitioners. Petition dismissed. .