JUDGMENT: (per C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.,) 1. This Writ Appeal arises out of common order, dated 12-11-2008 in Writ Petition No.22445 of 2007 and batch. 2. It is not in dispute that the Writ Appeals filed against the said common order by some of the parties, other than the parties in Writ Petition No.22445 of 2007, were dismissed. 3. The appellant, who is respondent No.3 in Writ Petition 22445 of 2007, is the widow of late Ramachandra, Ex-Secretary of Sri Mallidi Tirupayyagari Venkata Reddy Cooperative Rural Bank Limited, Ravulapalem, East Godavari District (for short “the Bank”). She filed this Writ Appeal feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge directing that fresh proceedings against her be initiated under Section 61 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short “the Act”). 4. It is not in dispute that the deceased Ex-Secretary of the Bank, who is the husband of the appellant, was among the other persons, who were part of the management of the Bank, that were alleged to have indulged in misappropriation of the Bank’s funds. Enquiry under Section 51 of the Act was initiated against all those persons, including the husband of the appellant. During the pendency of the said enquiry, the appellant’s husband died. The enquiry officer proceeded with the enquiry and submitted a report, on the basis of which proceedings under Section 60 of the Act were initiated and orders passed for recovery of certain amounts said to have been misappropriated. All the aggrieved persons, including the husband of the appellant, filed separate appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by order dated 21-3-2007 in O.A.No.78 of 2006 has set aside the order passed under Section 60 against the husband of the appellant. Similar orders were passed in favour of other persons, who filed appeals against the orders passed under Section 60 of the Act. The Bank filed Writ Petitions against the orders of the Tribunal in this Court. The learned single Judge has set aside the orders of the Tribunal and remanded the matters to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, with the direction that in all the cases, except the case of the husband of the appellant, surcharge proceedings under Section 60 of the Act shall be initiated. The learned single Judge has set aside the orders of the Tribunal and remanded the matters to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, with the direction that in all the cases, except the case of the husband of the appellant, surcharge proceedings under Section 60 of the Act shall be initiated. However, in the case of the husband of the appellant, as he has already died, the learned Judge directed that proceedings under Section 61 of the Act shall be initiated against the appellant and other legal representatives of the deceased Ex-Secretary. 5. At the hearing, Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that as the husband of the appellant died during the pendency of the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act, the cause has automatically ceased to survive and, therefore, the direction given by the learned single Judge that proceedings under Section 61 of the Act shall be initiated against the appellant and other legal representatives cannot be sustained. 6. Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the Bank, however, submitted that under Clause (c) of sub-Section (1) of 61 of the Act any dispute, inter alia, between the Society and heir or legal representatives of any deceased officer or deceased employee can be referred to the Registrar for a decision. According to the learned counsel, in view of the said provision, the learned single Judge was justified in law in giving the direction that the dispute be referred to the Registrar for a decision under the above-mentioned provision. 7. Section 61 of the Act envisages settlement of disputes among the society and various persons connected with the society. In the instant case, we are concerned with Clause (c) of sub-Section (1) of Section 61 of the Act, which reads as under: “ 61. Disputes which may be referred to the Registrar:- (1) Notwithstanding anything in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a society, other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its committee against a paid employee of the society, arises- (a) ... (b) ... Disputes which may be referred to the Registrar:- (1) Notwithstanding anything in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a society, other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its committee against a paid employee of the society, arises- (a) ... (b) ... (c) between the society or its committee, and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past agent, or past employee or the nominee, heir or legal representative of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society; or (d) ... such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision”. Explanation to sub-Section (1) of Section 61 of the Act reads as under: “Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-section a dispute shall include- (i) a claim by a society for any debt or other amount due to it from a member, past member, the nominee, heir or legal representative of a deceased member, whether such debt or other amount be admitted or not; (ii) a claim by surety against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any amount in respect of any debt or other amount due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor whether such debt or other amount due to be admitted or not; (iii) a claim by a society against a member, past member, or the nominee, heir or legal representative of a deceased member for the delivery of possession to the society of land or other immovable property resumed by it for breach of the conditions of assignment or allotment of such land or other immovable property”. 8. According to Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, the provisions of Section 61(1)(c) will get attracted qua the heirs or legal representatives of a deceased employee only when the liability on the deceased employee was already determined before his death. The learned counsel contended that the expression ‘dispute’ referred to in Section 61 does not comprehend a dispute of the nature, which is now sought to be referred, viz., whether the deceased Ex-Secretary has committed misappropriation or not. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Official Liquidator Vs. The learned counsel contended that the expression ‘dispute’ referred to in Section 61 does not comprehend a dispute of the nature, which is now sought to be referred, viz., whether the deceased Ex-Secretary has committed misappropriation or not. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Official Liquidator Vs. Parthasarathi Sinha ( AIR 1983 SC 188 ), in support of his contention. 9. We do not find any merit in this submission of the learned counsel. The language of Section 61 is unambiguous and it is wide enough to include within its ambit any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a society, other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action, inter alia, between the society and heir or legal representative of the deceased employee. The explanation extracted above is only illustrative and not exhaustive of the nature of the dispute. Admittedly, the appellant’s husband was involved in the management and business of the Bank. The appellant, being the wife, is undoubtedly the heir or legal representative of the deceased Ex-Secretary of the Bank. Therefore, we do not find any reason to restrict the scope of Section 61 to exclude a dispute of the nature, which has arisen in the instant case, viz., whether the husband of the appellant has misappropriated the Bank’s funds. We find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the expression ‘dispute’ occurring in Section 61 should be narrowed down to the cases where the liability of a deceased employee had already been ascertained; and wherever such ascertainment has not been done, the same cannot be treated as a dispute within the meaning of this provision. 10. Coming to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Official Liquidator (1 supra), cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, in our considered view, the said judgment helps the Bank rather than helping the appellant. In the Official Liquidator, Supreme Bank Ltd., Vs. P.A.Tendolkar ( AIR 1973 SC 1104 ), which was referred to and followed in the Official Liquidator (1 supra), the Supreme Court, while referring to the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona, categorically held that its application was generally confined to action for damages, defamation, seduction, inducing a spouse to remain apart from the other, and adultery. P.A.Tendolkar ( AIR 1973 SC 1104 ), which was referred to and followed in the Official Liquidator (1 supra), the Supreme Court, while referring to the maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona, categorically held that its application was generally confined to action for damages, defamation, seduction, inducing a spouse to remain apart from the other, and adultery. The Supreme Court, however, extended this maxim as a general principle, even to cases involving breaches of fiduciary duties or where the personal conduct of the deceased Director of a Company has been fully enquired. The Supreme Court, further held that this maxim shall not be applied where the assets or estate were left by the deceased in the hands of the successors. 11. Having carefully considered the said judgment, we are of the view that no ratio is laid down therein that once an employee dies, the employer is not entitled to hold an enquiry into the misfeasance or malfeasance of the deceased employee in order to fix the liability and recover the loss caused by such misfeasance or malfeasance from his personal estate, which is in the hands of the legal heirs or representatives of the deceased. We have no doubt in our mind that Section 61(1)(c) of the Act clearly enables the Bank to refer the dispute to arbitration to decide as to whether the husband of the appellant has misappropriated the Bank’s funds. In this view of the matter, we do not find any legal error in the order of the learned single Judge. 12. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed.