JUDGMENT Honble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by impugned order dated 27.8.2009, by which the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Allahabad Region, Allahabad has issued three directions i.e. (i) for lodging a first information report against the petitioners at concerned police station, (ii) for holding domestic enquiry against concerned five persons who were involved in the embezzlement, and (iii) to complete enquiry under Section 68(1) of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for assessing the loss suffered by the society/bank. 3. It appears that certain financial irregularities/embezzlement had taken place in Kisan Seva Sahkari Samiti Limited Shah, Fatehpur during the period 1994 to 1999, which were reported to the authorities. After holding enquiry under Section 68(1) of the Act, petitioner No. 4 was found to be guilty. He has been dismissed from service and the remaining petitioners in the preliminary enquiry against them have also been found to be involved alongwith him in the financial irregularities. In the aforesaid backdrop, the impugned order dated 27.8.2009 has been passed. 4. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing impugned order dated 27.8.09 appended as Annexure 3 to the writ petition and further for a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the aforesaid order. 5. The order impugned is assailed on the ground that it is evident from perusal of the order that enquiry under Section 68 (1) of the Act is still pending against the petitioners in respect of alleged financial irregularities said to have been committed during the period 1994 to 1999. It is stated that there can be no occasion for lodging F.I.R. or for initiating another disciplinary action in the circumstances for it will undoubtedly put the petitioners in double jeopardy as final orders under Section 68(1) of the Act are yet to be passed by the competent authority. 6. It is also stated that if any financial irregularities or any kind of loss to the society is found proved against delinquent employees, then such loss can be ordered to be compensated under Section 68 aforesaid, and as such the impugned order passed by respondent No. 3 is arbitrary, hasty and passed with ulterior motives towards the petitioners. 7. 6. It is also stated that if any financial irregularities or any kind of loss to the society is found proved against delinquent employees, then such loss can be ordered to be compensated under Section 68 aforesaid, and as such the impugned order passed by respondent No. 3 is arbitrary, hasty and passed with ulterior motives towards the petitioners. 7. Section 68 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, pertains to surcharge and provides thus : “68. Surcharge.—(1) If in the course of an audit, inquiry, inspection or the winding up of a cooperative 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 enquire 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 enquiry 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 office in any cooperative society for a period of five years from the date of the order of surcharge." 8. It appears from Annexure 1 to the writ petition that charges of financial irregularities levelled against the petitioners have been established in the preliminary enquiry and they were directed to appear before Upper Zila Sahkari Adhikari, Fatehpur on 20.8.2009 for submitting their reply to the charges levelled against them. It appears from Annexure 1 to the writ petition that charges of financial irregularities levelled against the petitioners have been established in the preliminary enquiry and they were directed to appear before Upper Zila Sahkari Adhikari, Fatehpur on 20.8.2009 for submitting their reply to the charges levelled against them. The relevant extract with regard to the charges having been proved against the petitioners, is as under : **dk;kZy; eq[; fodkl vf/kdkjh ¼lg0 vuq0½ ds vkns’k i=kad 2251@fnukad 16&11&06 ds }kjk v/kksgLrk{kjh@vij ftyk lgdkjh vf/kdkjh lnj dks fdlku lsok lgdkjh lfefr kkg fodkl [k.M cgqvk ds rRdkyhu dSMj lfpo@ÁcU/kd funs’kd Jh jktsUnz Álkn JhokLro }kjk vius dk;kZdky esa lfefr dks vkfFkZd {kfr igWqapkus rFkk /ku vigj.k dk Ádj.k Ádk’k esa vkus ds QyLo:i /kkjk 68 ¼1½ ds vUrxZr tkWap djus gsrq funsZf’kr fd;k x;k FkkA iqu% dk;kZy; eq[; fodkl vfèkdkjh ¼lg0 vuq0½ Qrsgiqj i=kad 466@6& lg0@vf/k0@2009&01@fnukad 2&7&09 }kjk Le`fr i= Hkstk x;k gS ftlesa tkWap desVh }kjk iwoZ esa tkWap dh x;h FkhA desVh esa vij ftyk lgdkjh vf/kdkjh lnj v/;{k ds0 lh0 dsljokuh lnL;A ofj"B ÁcU/kd ftyk lgdkjh cSad fy0@tkWap vf/kdkjh rFkk lgk;d fodkl vf/kdkjh lgdkfjrk@tkWap vf/kdkjh fo0 [k0 rsfy;kuh fu;qDr Fksa ftlesa mijksDr desVh }kjk mijksDr ikWap vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa dks Hkh viuh ÁFke tkWap esa nks"kh Bgjk;k x;k gS ftldh izfr rRdkyhu ofj"B ÁcU/kd Hkh ds0 lh0 dsljokuh }kjk ftyk lgdkjh cSad fy0 Qrsgiqj eq[;ky; esa Hkh tek fd;k x;k FkkA ftlesa mijksDr vf/kdkfj;ksa ls lEcfU/kr vkjksi izLrjokj mfYyf[kr fd;k x;k gSA ftldh lquok;h fnukad 20&8&09 dks v/kksgLrk{kjh ds dk;kZy; esa izkr% 11&00 cts dh tk;sxhA vr% mijksDr frfFk le; o LFkku ij mifLFkr gksdj tkWp desVh }kjk yxk, x;s vkjksiksa dk tokc nkf[kyA ÁLrqr djsaA vU;Fkk dh fLFkfr esa ;g le>k tkosxk fd vkidks lEcfU/kr vkjksiksa ds Áfr dqN Hkh ugha dguk gS rFkk vkjksi Lohdkj ekudj tkWap vk[;k ÁLrqr dj nh tkosxhA g0 vLi"V 4&8&09 vij ftyk lgdkjh vf/kdkjh lnj&QrsgiqjAÞ 9. It appears that thereafter the District Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Fatehpur vide his letter dated 20.8.2007 has submitted enquiry report to the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P., Allahabad Region, Allahabad, and in pursuance thereof the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, U.P., Allahabad by his letter dated 27.8.09 impugned in the writ petition, has issued directions for lodging F.I.R., holding domestic departmental enquiry and for assessing the financial loss/damage to the society under Section 68(1) of the Act for the purpose of surcharge. 10. 10. Contention of the counsel for petitioner is that earlier enquiry was preliminary enquiry in which they have been found guilty and F.I.R. has been directed to be lodged without completing the proceedings under Section 68(1) of the Act and without holding any domestic enquiry. 11. The law is settled that departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings both can be held simultaneously. The petitioner has not pleaded that his case will be prejudiced if criminal proceedings and departmental enquiry is held simultaneously. Since the matter pertains to financial irregularities committed in the bank which is a financial institution under management of the cooperative society, lodging of the F.I.R. was must. Contention of the counsel for petitioner that since proceedings under Section 68 of the Act have not been completed, hence departmental enquiry cannot be held or F.I.R. could not be lodged, has no force. A perusal of the order shows that the authority in the third direction has directed for assessing the loss/damage caused to the society during the period 1994 to 1999 by the delinquent employees. It is apparent from the record that so far as the question of involvement of the petitioners is concerned, petitioner No. 4 has already been found guilty and has been awarded punishment of dismissal from service. In the preliminary enquiry, prima facie the petitioners have also been found to be guilty and as a consequence regular departmental enquiry against them has been ordered. 12. For all the reasons stated above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 13. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ————