Judgment By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the award dated 30.7.1993 passed by respondent NO.3 contained in Annexure 16 to the writ petition. 2. The impugned award dated 30.7.1993 was made in reference No. 241 1991-1992 under Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. 3. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner was placed under suspension on 31.12.1990 and the departmental proceedings were held against him and he was found guilty of the embezzlement and the services of the petitioner were terminated on 5.06.1991. After the departmental proceedings were over, respondents made a reference under Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act against the petitioner for recovery of the losses caused by the petitioner to the Society under Clause (c) of Sub- section (2) read with Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. 4. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, the petitioner challenged the dismissal order by means of a writ petition bearing No. 19838/ 1991 before Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad and the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad stayed the termination order dated 5.6.1991. It was provided in the interim order dated 19.7.1991 that the petitioner will remain under suspension. 5. The petitioner contested the reference made under Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and sought several adjournments, but no reply was filed by him. The said reference was decided on 30.07.1993, which is impugned in this writ petition and recovery of the amount of Rs. 7,13,360.48/has been ordered by the Award dated 30.07.1993. 6. An F.I.R. was also lodged against the petitioner under Section 409 I.P.C. on the same set of facts for embezzlement of the amount as shown in the charge-sheet. In the meantime, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and the trial was conducted. After full fledged triel of the charge under Section 409, I.P.C. relating to the said embezzlement, the petitioner has been exonerated and for exonerating the petitioner, the Trial Court in its judgment has dealt with as under (English Version) : "So, it is clear from the available evidence that the balance sheet was prepared every year and the Secretary kept the Cash book, in which the regular entries had been entered. The complainant Pitamber Bhatt P. W. 5 has stated in cross-examination that on 30.9.90, the Secretary had verified the Stock Register and the Register was found correct on the basis of verification. The Prosecution could not make it clear that both the locks in the consumer room belong to whom. Mayashankar Gupta P. W.6 stated that Tehsildar made an enquiry about the locks and in enquiry, he found that both the locks belong to the Secretary. Thus the evidence available in file is not sufficient against accused for accusation and the accused is liable to be acquitted for the offence alleged by the prosecution. " 7. Since, the petitioner has been exonerated of the charge of embezzlement under Section 409 I.P.C., therefore, the petitioner cannot be held guilty of the embezzlement. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no appeal is filed against the said judgment of the trial court by the respondents and the judgment of the Trial Court has become final. Since, the petitioner has not been held to be guilty, therefore, no question of recovery from the petitioner arises. The reference was made on the basis that the petitioner was guilty of the loss, therefore, the basis of reference goes after the judgment of the trial Court and therefore, the award dated 30.07.1993 made on the basis of the said reference cannot be allowed to continue. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Arbitrator is a Civil Court and the decree passed by the Arbitrator cannot be set aside after the judgment of the trial court on the same set of facts. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is mis-conceived. The award has been challenged in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court has vide powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to do the justice and to set aside the judgment or award, if it suffers from mis-carriage of justice. Here, since the petitioner has not been held guilty of the charge under Section 409, I.P.C., which was on the same set of facts, no amount can be recovered from the petitioner. Therefore, the award dated 30.7.1993 suffers from mis-carriage of justice and can be set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. Therefore, the award dated 30.7.1993 suffers from mis-carriage of justice and can be set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The award dated 30.7.1993 passed by respondent No.3 contained in Annexure 16 to the writ petition is, hereby, set aside. No order as to costs.