Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 820 (RAJ)

Mangilal v. State of Rajasthan

2006-03-09

GOVIND MATHUR

body2006
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-The petitioner was elected as Mantri of Menunduria Gram Seva Sahakari Samiti Ltd. for a term of three years commencing from 1974 to 1977. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajsamand made an inquiry against the petitioner under Sub-section 1 of Section 74 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 1965), and by an order dated 22.08.1980 the petitioner was exonerated from the allegations of misappropriation pertaining to charges No. 1 to 3 and 5. Against charge No. 4 the petitioner was held liable to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/-with fine of Rs. 1,500/-. The amount aforesaid in pursuant to the order dated 22.08.1980 was deposited by the petitioner with the Co-operative Society. 2. For the same charge which was subject matter of the inquiry referred above the Special Auditor, Co-operative Societies, Udaipur re-initiated the proceedings under Section 74 of the Act of 1965 and passed an order dated 210.1989 declaring the petitioner guilty for misappropriation of the funds and accordingly ordered for recovery of the sum of Rs. 10,231/-from the petitioner. 3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 210.1989 the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Co-operatives stating therein that the proceedings initiated by the Special Auditor are absolutely illegal as for the same charge an inquiry earlier by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies was conducted and that culminated into an order dated 22.08.1980. The petitioner also alleged that the initiation of proceedings afresh under Section 74 of the Act of 1965 is without jurisdiction being initiated after a lapse of six years from the date of knowledge to the Registrar for alleged act. The Secretary, Department of Co-operatives rejected the revision petition preferred by the petitioner by the order dated 110.1993 being barred by the limitation. Hence, the instant petition for writ is preferred. 4. The Secretary, Department of Co-operatives rejected the revision petition preferred by the petitioner by the order dated 110.1993 being barred by the limitation. Hence, the instant petition for writ is preferred. 4. It is contended by Counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 210.1989 012.1989 holding the petitioner guilty for mis-appropriation is absolutely without jurisdiction as the proceedings under Section 74 were initiated after a lapse of six years from the date of knowledge of the act, it is emphasized by the Counsel for the petitioner that the act of the petitioner was well within the knowledge of the Registrar as for the same charge an inquiry was conducted in the year 1980, therefore, it cannot be said that the Registrar was not having knowledge of the act on basis of which the petitioner was charged and found guilty for mis-appropriation under the order impugned dated 210.1989. 5. I have examined the order dated 22.08.1980 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies whereby the petitioner was exonerated from four allegations and was found guilty for keeping Rs. 5,000/-with him. I have also examined the order dated 210.1989. The charges which are subject matter of the order dated 210.1989 were also subject matter of inquiry that culminated into order dated 22.08.1980, as such, I found force in the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Registrar was having knowledge of the act of the petitioner even in the year 1980, and, therefore, in the year 1989 the initiation of proceedings under Section 74 after the lapse of six years from the date of knowledge was wholly without jurisdiction. The revisional authority dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner being barred by limitation, however, as the original order itself is without jurisdiction the revisional authority should have condoned the delay. 6. I also find force in the contention of Counsel for the petitioner that as a matter of fact the charge for which the petitioner was held liable for deposition of amount to the tune of Rs. 10,231/-was already adjudicated by the Assistant Registrar in earlier proceedings under Section 74 of the Act of 1965 which culminated into an order dated 22.08.1980, and, therefore, there was no occasion for re-initiating the proceedings under Section 74 of the Act of 1965. 7. 10,231/-was already adjudicated by the Assistant Registrar in earlier proceedings under Section 74 of the Act of 1965 which culminated into an order dated 22.08.1980, and, therefore, there was no occasion for re-initiating the proceedings under Section 74 of the Act of 1965. 7. The order impugned nowhere mentions as to what was the reason for re-initiating the inquiry when the petitioner was already subjected to the same and was exonerated by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies by the order dated 22.08.1980. Beside the above the order passed by the Special Auditor is absolutely a non-speaking and unreasoned order. The order does not contain any reason for holding the petitioner guilty for mis-appropriation. 8. In view of whatever discussed above this petition for writ succeeds and, therefore, the same is allowed. The order dated 210.1989 is quashed. The recovery proceedings conducted against the petitioner in pursuant thereto are also held bad in the eye of law and the same are also quashed. The warrant of attachment and sale issued by the Recovery Officer, Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Branch Rajmagra dated 20.11.1993 in pursuant to the order dated 210.1989 is also quashed.