R. K. AGRAWAL, J. ( 1 ) BUNNI Lal Chaurasia appellant writ petitioner has filed the present special appeal against the judgment and order dated 4. 9. 1997 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant writ petitioner has been dismissed. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated that facts giving rise to the present special appeal are as follows : "the appellant writ petitioner was appointed as Co-operative Supervisor in the U. P. Cooperative federal Authority on 28. 6. 1978. He was working at Kisan Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd. Vigrameer, vikas Khand Sameriyawan, tehsil Khalilabad district Basti and was confirmed on the said post on 5. 11. 1988, He was placed under suspension vide order dated 13. 9. 1990. Two separate charge-sheets were served on him on 6. 11. 1990 and 19. 9. 1991 which was duly replied by him on 4. 12. 1990 and 4. 10. 1991 respectively. The Inquiry Officer has conducted the inquiry and submitted his report on 11. 11. 1991. The Inquiry Officer found the appellant writ petitioner guilty in respect of charge Nos. 4, 5, 8, 11 and 12. However, the Inquiry Officer found that the Charge nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9 and 10 were not proved against him. The Inquiry Officer also recommended appropriate action under Section 68 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to be initiated against the appellant writ petitioner in order to determine the amount of loss caused on account of breach of trust, wilful negligence, etc. The proceedings under section 68 of the Act were initiated against him. According to the report dated 30. 6. 1992, a sum of Rs. 1,34,742. 38 was found to be recoverable from the appellant writ petitioner under Section 68 of the Act. A show cause notice was issued by the Chairman. Regional Committee on 13. 7. 1993 calling upon the appellant writ petitioner to show cause. The Regional Committee fixed 29. 7. 1993 as the date for consideration of the matter. When the appellant writ petitioner did not submit any reply to the show cause notice, a notice was published in Hindi dally news paper "dainik Jagran" on 25. 11. 1993. Another notice was sent by Registered Post to the appellant writ petitioner on 4. 12. 1993 fixing 21. 12. 7. 1993 as the date for consideration of the matter. When the appellant writ petitioner did not submit any reply to the show cause notice, a notice was published in Hindi dally news paper "dainik Jagran" on 25. 11. 1993. Another notice was sent by Registered Post to the appellant writ petitioner on 4. 12. 1993 fixing 21. 12. 1993, but for the reasons best known to the appellant writ petitioner he did not appear and, therefore, on the date fixed, i. e. , on 21. 12. 1993, the Regional committee, after considering the entire material on record, passed an order dismissing the appellant writ petitioner from service and also for recovery of Rs. 1,49,860. 03. This amount of rs. 1,49,860. 03 p. included the amount of Rs. 1,34,742. 38 found to be recoverable from the appellant writ petitioner under Section 68 of the Act and a sum of Rs. 15,177. 65 which was found by the Inquiry Officer to have been embezzled by the appellant writ petitioner. The chairman, Regional Committee, Co-operative Societies communicated the resolution passed by the committee to the appellant writ petitioner vide order dated 20. 1. 1994. The said order was challenged by the appellant writ petitioner before this Court by means of a writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 4. 9. 1997. " ( 3 ) WE have heard Sri K. M. Mishra learned counsel for the appellant writ petitioner and Shri K. N. Mishra learned counsel for the respondents. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant writ petitioner submitted that since the Inquiry Officer had exonerated the appellant writ petitioner from charge Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9 and 10 and recommended for action under Section 68 of the Act in respect of the remaining charges, it was not open to the Regional Committee to disagree with the said findings without giving any notice and opportunity to the appellant writ petitioner intimating him that the committee is going to differ with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. He relied upon a decision of the Honble Supreme court in the case of Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Bihari Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 . He relied upon a decision of the Honble Supreme court in the case of Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Bihari Mishra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 . He further submitted that under Section 68 of the Act, there is no power with the Regional committee to dismiss a person from service and only the amount which is found due can be ordered to be recovered from the person concerned. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant on the other hand submitted that before the learned single judge, the appellant writ petitioner had raised only one question to the effect that he was not afforded an opportunity of showing cause in the proceedings under Section 68 of the Act as would be clear from the impugned judgment and order of the learned single Judge itself. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the respondent, the appellant writ petitioner cannot be permitted to raise any other question in appeal before this Court when he had not raised and argued them before the learned single Judge. He relied upon a decision of the Honble Supreme court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. R. S. Nayak, AIR 1982 SC 1249 . He further submitted that if it is the case of appellant writ petitioner that he had raised and argued all the points, which he is raising and arguing now in special appeal, before the learned single Judge, then the proper course would be to make an application before the learned single Judge seeking correction of the statement of facts recorded by the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents further submitted that the Inquiry Officer was not at all justified in recommending as to what punishment should be given to the delinquent employee and it was for the Regional Committee to consider the report and come to its own conclusion regarding the punishment to be given. According to him, the appellant writ petitioner has not been dismissed from the service under Section 68 of the Act but has been dismissed from the service in exercise of power conferred upon the Regional Committee for taking disciplinary action and under Section 68 only the amount has been quantified. According to him, the appellant writ petitioner has not been dismissed from the service under Section 68 of the Act but has been dismissed from the service in exercise of power conferred upon the Regional Committee for taking disciplinary action and under Section 68 only the amount has been quantified. ( 8 ) SO far as the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that before the learned single Judge the petitioner had confined his submission only with regard to the challenge to the impugned order on the ground that the order is vitiated and it has to be set aside as reasonable opportunity of hearing and to place his point of view in the proceeding under section 68 of the Act was not afforded is concerned, we find that the learned single Judge had recorded a statement of fact that only the legal question has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that he was not afforded an opportunity of showing cause in the proceedings under section 68 of the Act is to be considered by the Court and the learned counsel has confined his statement only with regard to the aforesaid question. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. R. S. Nayak (supra), the Honble Supreme Court has held as follows : "when we drew the attention of the learned Attorney General to the concession made before the high Court. Shri A. K. Sen, who appeared for the State of Maharashtra before the High Court and led the arguments for the respondents there and who appeared for Shri Antulay before us intervened and protested that he never made any such concession and invited us to peruse the written submission made by him in the High Court. We are afraid that we can not launch into an inquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public policy bars us judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt. Judges cannot be dragged into the arena. "judgments cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation". (Per Lord Alkinson in Somasundaran v. Subramanian, AIR 1926 PC 136. We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in Court. They are not open to doubt. Judges cannot be dragged into the arena. "judgments cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation". (Per Lord Alkinson in Somasundaran v. Subramanian, AIR 1926 PC 136. We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in Court. We cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the Judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. The principle is well-settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the Court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in Court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error (Per Lord Buckmaster in Madhusudan v. Chadrabati, AIR 1917 PC 30 ). That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. " ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of state of Maharashtra v. R. S. Naik (supra), the appellant writ petitioner is bound by the points raised by his counsel before the learned single Judge. Before the learned single Judge, the question raised and argued was only regarding affording of reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant writ petitioner in the proceedings under Section 68 of the Act. The learned single judge found that the proceedings under Section 68 of the Act were initiated on the basis of the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer and he was afforded opportunity time and again but he absented himself and failed to place his point of view. The learned single judge found that the proceedings under Section 68 of the Act were initiated on the basis of the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer and he was afforded opportunity time and again but he absented himself and failed to place his point of view. Notices were sent to him by registered post but the petitioner failed to appear before the authorities concerned who was conducting the proceedings under Section 68 of the Act. Despite publication of notice in daily news paper "dainik Jagran", he did not appear before the authority. ( 10 ) THE learned single Judge, after perusing the material on record, recorded a categorical finding that the appellant writ petitioner deliberately avoided to appear before the Deputy registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gorakhpur region, Gorakhpur, in the proceedings under section 68 of the Act. Inspite of the fact that the said authority exhausted all possible methods to procure the attendance of the appellant writ petitioner and to enable him to show cause to the notice and to place his point of view. Whatever was possible and was within the means of the said authority to serve the appellant writ petitioner so that he may be able to participate in the proceeding was done and provided but the petitioner himself deliberately failed to participate in the proceedings or to extend his cooperation he has to thank himself. The petitioner cannot take lame excuse after passing of the order of termination that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant writ petitioner has not been able to disprove the findings recorded by the learned single Judge by pointing out from any material from the record. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned single Judge that the appellant writ petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to put his case before the authority concerned in proceedings under section 68 of the Act does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned single Judge that the appellant writ petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to put his case before the authority concerned in proceedings under section 68 of the Act does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. ( 12 ) SO far as the question as to whether in proceedings under Section 68 of the Act, the appellant writ petitioner can be dismissed from service or not and as to whether the disciplinary authority, while differing with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, ought to have given a notice to the appellant writ petitioner goes to the root of the matter and the appellant writ petitioner can raise the said points in special appeal. Under Section 68 of the Act, the Registrar has been empowered to make an order of surcharge requiring the person concerned to restore the property or repay the money or any part thereof with interest at such rate, or to pay contribution and costs or compensation to such an extent as the Registrar may consider just and equitable after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the person concerned. No power has been conferred upon any authority under Section 68 of the Act for passing an order dismissing a person from service. Section 68 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 is reproduced below : "68. No power has been conferred upon any authority under Section 68 of the Act for passing an order dismissing a person from service. Section 68 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 is reproduced below : "68. 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 or caused to be 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 misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property belonging to such society, the Registrar of his own motion or on the application of the committee, liquidator or any creditor, inquire 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 commenced after the expiry of twelve 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 affording the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard, make an order of surcharge requiring him to restore the property or repay the money or any part thereof with interest at such rate, or to pay contribution and costs or compensation to such an extent as the Registrar may consider just and equitable. (3) Where an order of surcharge has been passed against a person under Sub-section (2) for having caused any deficiency in the assets of the society by breach of trust or wilful negligence, or for having misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property belonging to such society. such person shall, subject to the result of appeal, if any, filed against such order, be disqualified from continuing in or being elected or appointed to an offence in any co-operative society for a period of five years from the date of the order of surcharge. such person shall, subject to the result of appeal, if any, filed against such order, be disqualified from continuing in or being elected or appointed to an offence in any co-operative society for a period of five years from the date of the order of surcharge. " ( 13 ) FROM a perusal of the Annexures C. A.-1, C. A.-2 and C. A.-3 filed along with the counter-affidavit of Shiv Kumar Singh, Regional Officer (writ) Provincial Co-operative Union u. P. in the writ petition it is clear that the notice which was sent to (he appellant writ petitioner was regarding proceedings under Section 68 of the Act. The first notice which had been published in dainik Jagran dated 10. 7. 1993, filed as Annexure C. A.-1 to the counter-affidavit asks the appellant writ petitioner to appear before the Registrar Cooperative Societies, U. P. , gorakhpur on 13. 7. 1993. The second notice which was published in dainik Jagran on 2nd october, 1993, filed as Annexure C. A.-2 to the counter-affidavit specifically asks the appellant writ petitioner to submit his explanation to the report under Section 68 (1) of the Act. The third notice which has been published in dainik Jagran dated 28th November, 1993, filed as annexure C. A.-3 to the counter-affidavit does not specify as to whether the said notice was in respect of disciplinary proceedings or in respect of the proceedings under Section 68 of the Act. Thus, from the various notice published in the news paper referred to above, an inference can be drawn that all the notices were published in relation to proceedings under Section 68 of the Act. ( 14 ) FROM the perusal of the order dated 20. 1. 1994. It appears that no notice was given to the appellant writ petitioner regarding the proposed punishment. Thus, in our considered view, an order of dismissal could not have been passed in the proceedings under Section 68 of the Act as it only empowers the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies to order for restoring the property or repaying the money or any part thereof with interest at such rate or the contribution and costs or compensation to such an extent as may be considered just and equitable. ( 15 ) IN view of the foregoing discussions, the special appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order dated 4. 9. ( 15 ) IN view of the foregoing discussions, the special appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order dated 4. 9. 1997, passed by the learned single Judge is set aside and the order dated 20. 1. 1994, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, U. P. , Gorakhpur and chairman, Regional Committee P. C. U. , Gorakhpur, whereby the appellant writ petitioner has been communicated with the order of dismissal from service is set aside. The appellant writ petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits. However, there shall be no order as to costs. .