Judgment M.R. Shah, J.—Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner - at the relevant time the Chairman of the Society, now through his heirs and legal representatives, to quash and set aside the impugned investigation report at Annexure-D to the petition and the impugned order dated 4/2/2002 passed by the Respondent No. 2 – District Registrar passed under Section 93 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) as well as the impugned judgement and order dated 18/7/2006 passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal in Appeal Nos. 197 of 2002. 2.00. That the original petitioner - Ranjitbhai Chhitubhai Patel was the Chairman of the Respondent No. 2 society. That there were allegations of mismanagement and mis-administration of the society and therefore, after following due procedure and giving opportunity to all the concerned, inclusive of the original petitioner, the District Registrar passed order dated 31/3/2000 to supersede the Board of Directors of the society. 2.01. That thereafter the administrator was appointed and thereafter the administrator requested the Respondent No. 1 - District Registrar to make inquiry under Section 86 of the Act with respect to the mismanagement and mis-administration of the society. That the District Registrar issued show cause notice dated 15/3/2001 so as to appoint inquiry officer. That thereafter, the inquiry officer submitted its report to the District Registrar specifically observing that there was misappropriation in the society. That based on the inquiry report under Section 86 of the Act, the society through its administrator requested the District Registrar to appoint investigating officer and initiate proceedings under Section 93 of the Act. That one Mr. N.R. Patel was appointed as inquiry officer to investigate into four issues under Section 93 of the Act. That the investigating officer thereafter started proceedings under Section 93 and issued charge-sheet dated 26/11/2001 to all the members of the Board of Directors of the society including the original petitioner. The original petitioner submitted his reply dated 12/12/2001 to the investigating officer. The statement of the original petitioner along with other Directors was recorded. Thereafter the inquiry officer by report at Annexure-D held the members of the Board of Directors liable for a sum of Rs. 12,81,835.05 ps., based on which the original petitioner was held liable for a sum of Rs. 6,39,695/-. The statement of the original petitioner along with other Directors was recorded. Thereafter the inquiry officer by report at Annexure-D held the members of the Board of Directors liable for a sum of Rs. 12,81,835.05 ps., based on which the original petitioner was held liable for a sum of Rs. 6,39,695/-. The investigating officer also held the original petitioner liable for the other amount. That thereafter the District Registrar by his order dated 4/2/2002 required the remaining six directors to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,06,820/- along with 16% interest. That the Respondent No. 2 society and required the original petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 11,82,439/- with 16% interest. That Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Registrar and the investigating officer, the original petitioner preferred Appeal No. 197 of 2002 challenging the action order passed by the District Registrar as well as investigating officer so far as their liability is concerned. That by the impugned judgement and order dated 18/7/2006 the tribunal dismissed the said appeal preferred by the original petitioner being Appeal No. 197 of 2002, however, by a separate judgement and order the tribunal allowed Appeal No. 451 of 2002 preferred by the other Directors and quashed and set aside the order passed by the District Registrar and inquiry officer so far as the liability to other directors is concerned. It is to be noted that as such Appeal No. 451 of 2002 was decided by the Tribunal prior in time and thereafter appeal preferred by the original petitioner herein being Appeal No. 197 of 2002 came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and order passed by the Gujarat State Cooperative Tribunal in Appeal No. 197 of 2002 as well as order passed by the Respondent No. 1 under Section 93 of the Act and the notice issued by the society and the report submitted by the investigating officer, the original petitioner - Chairman of the society has preferred the present petition, now the heirs and legal representatives of the original petitioner, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3.00. Mr. 3.00. Mr. Shirish Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original petitioner has vehemently submitted that the learned tribunal has taken two different views in two different appeals arising out of the same action / order passed by the authority under Section 93 of the Act. It is submitted that the investigating officer did not examine the inquiry officer and to that extent the original petitioner was not given opportunity to cross-examine the inquiry officer who submitted the report under Section 86 of the Act. It is submitted that the aforesaid submission came to be accepted by the learned tribunal while deciding the Appeal No. 451 of 2002 and on that ground the learned tribunal quashed and set aside the order passed by the authority under Section 93 of the Act and allowed the said appeal. However, the appeal preferred by the petitioner being Appeal No. 197 of 2002 has been dismissed though the aforesaid contention was raised. It is further submitted that as such the inquiry officer who submitted report under Section 86 of the Act and on whose report proceedings under Section 93 of the Act were initiated, was required to be examined and petitioner was required to be given opportunity to cross-examine him as held by the tribunal in its decision in the case of Khodidasbhai Thakkar and others vs. Shri Liliya Mahal Sahakari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. and others, reported in 2007 CTD 47 (Para 9). Therefore, it is submitted that on non-examination of the inquiry officer by the investigating officer in the proceedings under Section 93 of the Act, right of the petitioner to cross-examine has been taken away and therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Registrar under Section 93 of the Act and the impugned notice of recovery as well as the impugned judgement and impugned order passed by the tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3.01. Mr. Shirish Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that even the learned tribunal has relied upon the findings made against the original petitioner which were recorded while deciding Appeal No. 451 of 2002 which was filed by other members of the society, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 3.01. Mr. Shirish Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that even the learned tribunal has relied upon the findings made against the original petitioner which were recorded while deciding Appeal No. 451 of 2002 which was filed by other members of the society, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner. It is submitted that without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the finding given in another appeal could not have been relied upon by the tribunal while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner. By making above submissions and relying upon the above decision it is requested to allow the present petition. 4.00. Present petition is opposed by Mr. C.J. Vin, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 and Mr. J.K. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the District Registrar. It is submitted by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents that there are concurrent finding of facts given by all the authorities below holding that the petitioner is responsible and liable for the action under Section 93 of the Act and the said findings are not required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4.01. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents has further submitted that in the proceedings under Section 93 of the Act, the original petitioner replied each and every charge levelled against him, however, he did not dispute the Inquiry Report and after considering the report submitted by the inquiry officer under Section 86 of the Act and after considering the reply submitted by the original petitioner, the District Registrar has passed order under Section 93 of the Act, therefore it is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case non-examination of the inquiry officer does not vitiate proceedings under Section 93 of the Act. 4.02. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents has further submitted that the tribunal has not allowed the Appeal No. 451 of 2002 preferred by the other members solely on the ground that Investigating Officer / authority under Section 93 of the Act did not examine inquiry officer. It is submitted that as such the tribunal has considered the case of the members on merits and has exonerated them. It is submitted that as such the tribunal has considered the case of the members on merits and has exonerated them. Therefore, it is submitted that as such there are no different stand taken by the tribunal, as alleged. 4.03. Now so far as some of the observations made while deciding the Appeal No. 451 of 2002 relied upon by the tribunal while deciding the appeal of the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents that as such the appeal preferred by the petitioner is not dismissed solely relying upon the observations made against the petitioner, made while deciding Appeal No. 451 of 2002. It is submitted that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been decided on its own merits considering the case of the petitioner independently. By making above submissions it is requested to dismiss the present Special Civil Application. 5.00. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 5.01. At the outset, it is required to be noted that there are concurrent findings of facts given by all the authorities below holding that the original petitioner responsible and liable for the mis-management and mis-administration and for the loss caused to the society. The finding given by all the authorities below are on appreciation of evidence on record and the same are recorded after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and the petitioner was served with the show cause notice with all charges levelled against him and the petitioner replied to the said charges one by one. As such the petitioner did not dispute the findings in the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer who submitted report under Section 86 of the Act on the basis of which proceedings under Section 93 of the Act were initiated. It is to be noted that the original petitioner never requested for cross-examination of the inquiry officer and/or never requested for examining the inquiry officer. The petitioner was served with the charge-sheet on the basis of the report given by the inquiry officer under Section 86 of the Act and the petitioner replied to the same. It is to be noted that the original petitioner never requested for cross-examination of the inquiry officer and/or never requested for examining the inquiry officer. The petitioner was served with the charge-sheet on the basis of the report given by the inquiry officer under Section 86 of the Act and the petitioner replied to the same. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, non-examination of the inquiry officer, who submitted report under Section 86 of the Act, does not vitiate proceedings under Section 93 of the Act and it cannot be said that the order under Section 93 of the Act has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Under the circumstances the decision relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the case of Khodidasbhai Thakkar and others, of the tribunal will not be of any assistance to the petitioner. 5.02. Now, so far as the contention of the petitioner that the tribunal has taken different views while deciding Appeal No. 451 of 2002 preferred by the other members and while deciding Appeal No. 197 of 2002 preferred by the original petitioner herein and the tribunal has allowed the Appeal No. 451 of 2002 on the ground that the inquiry officer was not examined by the investigating officer, and not accepted the said contention though raised while deciding Appeal No. 197 of 2002 preferred by the original petitioner, is concerned, the same has no substance. While considering the order passed by the learned tribunal in Appeal No. 451 of 2002, it appears that as such the tribunal has decided and allowed the said appeal considering the role attributed to the members of the society and considering their case individually and not solely on the aforesaid ground. Therefore, as such no two different views are taken by the tribunal as alleged. 5.03. Now, so far as the contention on behalf of the petitioner that while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner the tribunal has relied upon some observations made against the petitioner made while deciding the Appeal No. 451 of 2002 is concerned, the same has also no substance. The tribunal has not dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner solely by relying upon some observations or finding recorded while deciding Appeal No. 451 of 2002. The tribunal has not dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner solely by relying upon some observations or finding recorded while deciding Appeal No. 451 of 2002. Considering the impugned judgement and order passed by the tribunal it appears that the tribunal has decided the appeal on its own merits and considering the case of the petitioner individually and independently. 5.04. As stated above, present is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and as such there are concurrent findings of facts given by all the authorities below holding that the original petitioner as a Chairman of the society is responsible and liable for the loss caused to the society and the said findings of facts are given on appreciation of evidence and after giving opportunity to the original petitioner and therefore, the same is not required to be re-appreciated by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6.00. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition fails and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. At this stage, Mr. Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has requested that during the pendency of the proceedings some amount has been realised by the society which is required to be given credit to the petitioner. The factual foundation with respect to the same is not before this Court, however, while dismissing the present petition it is observed that as and when any proceedings are initiated for recovery of the amount against the petitioner arising out of the order under Section 93 of the Act and in case it is found that any amount is realised by the society and to that extent the amount of loss is reduced, it will be open for the petitioner to submit the same and the same may be considered in accordance with law and on merits, for which this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits. With these present petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated forthwith. No costs.