Judgment :- “CR” The second respondent availed a loan from the first respondent and executed an agreement in terms of Section 37 (1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter, ‘the Act’. By the force of that agreement, the petitioner was entitled to request the employer of the second respondent to make deductions from the salary of the second respondent for remittance towards the defaulted loan account. The petitioner made such request to the first respondent Commissioner of Police. No action followed. Thereafter, the second respondent retired from service. The retrial benefits are not covered by Section 37 agreement between the petitioner and the second respondent. 2. In the aforesaid circumstances, notice was issued to the first respondent to show cause why deductions were not promptly made while the second respondent was in service. A counter affidavit has been placed on record, taking the stand that the salary certificate was issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, who does not have authority to do so, while it is the Account Officer, who is the drawing and disbursing officer, is the only one who is authorized to issue a salary certificate and also to make deductions in terms of the Act. The thrust of the counter affidavit is that there is no consensus by the competent authority, Viz., the Accounts Officer, to comply with any agreement under Section 37. 3. A plain reading of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 37 of the Act would show that what is contemplated is an agreement between the creditor and the debtor, whereby, the debtor agrees to the creditor requesting for deduction from salary in case of default in repayment of loan. Once such an agreement is executed between the creditor and the debtor, Section 37 (2) obliges the employer of the debtor to act in terms of any request made by the creditor, provided the request falls on the basis of the agreement under Section 37 (1). Once that is done, the responsibility to make deductions in terms of Section 37 (2) does not depend upon the volition of the employer. It is a statutory obligation. The provisions of the Act also enjoin penalty for non-compliance of the obligation under Section 37 (2). Once that is done, the responsibility to make deductions in terms of Section 37 (2) does not depend upon the volition of the employer. It is a statutory obligation. The provisions of the Act also enjoin penalty for non-compliance of the obligation under Section 37 (2). Section 94 (5) of the Act provides that any employer or officer, who, without sufficient cause, fails to deduct any amount as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 37, shall be punishable with fine, which may extend to Rs.5,000/-. Such a penalty is also provided for persons who deduct the amount but fail to pay it to the creditor within a period of 7 days. What is provided thereby is a punishment which means, on being inflicted with that penalty, the officer against whom such an order is passed would stand as one who is found to be guilty of an offence. In the context of Section 37 (2), it essentially would tantamount to dereliction of duties. 4. The plea in the counter affidavit that the salary certificate was not issued by the competent authority and therefore, Section 37 agreement is not binding is unsustainable. Equally unsustainable is the stand taken in the counter affidavit that the competent officer empowered to make deductions from the salary has not signed the papers under Section 37. The further plea that the second respondent had been transferred out of the station in question does not also hold good, because, if he immediate superior officer at a particular point of time is requested by a creditor under Section 37 of the Act, it is obligatory that such request is forwarded to the competent officer who is the superior officer at that time. The creditor cannot be forced to hunt down the appropriate officer who should be moved for relief in terms of Section 37 (2). 5. As of now, the second respondent has retired from service. Therefore, in terms of the agreement under Section 37 (1) between the petitioner and the second respondent, there can be no recovery against the second respondent. For that short reason, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed.