JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J. The petitioner challenges the order Annexure P-4 passed in appeal by the Registrar Co-operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh under the H.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against the order dated 7.5.2004 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Palampur, H.P. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was surcharged under Section 69(2) of the Act aforesaid on inquiry having been conducted by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Palampur, who held the petitioner responsible for losses caused to the Society to the extent of Rs.1,23,658/-. The charges considered were:- (a) Excessive withdrawal of salary; (b) Illegal appointment of Assistant Secretary; (c) Recovery of interest on illegal advancement of loan; (d) Illegal drawn of office rent; (e) Mis-utilisation / mis-appropriation/embezzlement of cash in hand 3. On conspectus of evidence considered by the Assistant Registrar, the petitioner was held liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,23,658/-. An ex-parte order was passed against the petitioner. The order observes that during the course of hearing, the petitioner did not attend the Court on the dates intimated to him, nor produced any documentary or oral evidence. The hearings were held on different dates; viz.9.3.2004, 17.4.2004 and 7.5.2004 respectively. 4. In appeal, this order (Annexure P-2) has been affirmed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh. He takes note of the facts that the case was heard on the dates fixed as supra. It was contended before him that adequate opportunity has not been granted to the petitioner herein and it was on this score that the order needs to be set aside. The Registrar then proceeds that the record shows that reasonable opportunities have been afforded to the petitioner herein, but he deliberately evaded service. He did not appear despite proper service on 17.4.2004 and 7.5.2004. Some medical certificates were attached with the appeal, which, according to the Registrar, were nothing but a cover-up. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised a number of grounds in support of his contention and prays that the order be set aside as the reading of the provisions of the Act does not vest power in any statutory authority to proceed with the matter and to over rule the decision of the House of the Society. The petitioner contends that the appointment of the Secretary and withdrawal of the expenses etc. The petitioner contends that the appointment of the Secretary and withdrawal of the expenses etc. was with the consent of the House and that there has been a total failure of natural justice as reasonable opportunity having being granted to the petitioner in the present case. Learned counsel relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Dev Dutt vs. Union of India and Others, (2008)8 SCC 725 , wherein the Court holds:- “24. What is natural justice? The rules of natural justice are not codified nor are they unvarying in all situations, rather they are flexible. They may, however, be summarized in one word : fairness. In other words, what they require is fairness by the authority concerned. Of course, what is fair would depend on the situation and the context. 25. Lord Esher M.R. in Voinetvs. Barrett (1885) 55 L.J. QB 39, observed: "Natural justice is the natural sense of what is right and wrong." 26. In our opinion, our natural sense of what is right and wrong tells us that it was wrong on the part of the respondent in not communicating the 'good' entry to the appellant since he was thereby deprived of the right to make a representation against it, which if allowed would have entitled him to be considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. One may not have the right to promotion, but one has the right to be considered for promotion, and this right of the appellant was violated in the present case. 27. A large number of decisions of this Court have discussed the principles of natural justice and it is not necessary for us to go into all of them here. However, we may consider a few. 28. Thus, in A.K. Kraipak & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1970 SC 150 , a Constitution Bench of this Court held : “20. … … … The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the past it was thought that it included just two rules, namely (1) no one shall be a judge in his own case (Nemo debet esse judex propria causa), and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem). In the past it was thought that it included just two rules, namely (1) no one shall be a judge in his own case (Nemo debet esse judex propria causa), and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem). Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice ". (Emphasis supplied) The aforesaid decision was followed by this Court in K. I. Shephard & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 686 (vide paras 12-15). It was held in this decision that even administrative acts have to be in accordance with natural justice if they have civil consequences. It was also held that natural justice has various facets and acting fairly is one of them. 29. In Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Girja Shankar Pant, AIR 2001 SC 24 , this Court held (vide para 2): “2. … … The doctrine (natural justice) is now termed as a synonym of fairness in the concept of justice and stands as the most accepted methodology of a governmental action". (Emphasis supplied) In the same decision it was also held following the decision of Tucker, LJ in Russell vs. Duke of Norfolk, (1949) 1 All ER 109 (CA) "The requirement of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the enquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject-matter that is being dealt with, and so forth". 30. In Union of India etc. vs. Tulsiram Patel etc., AIR 1985 SC 1416 (vide para 97) a Constitution Bench of this Court referred to with approval the following observations of Ormond, LJ. in Norwest Hoist Ltd. vs. Secretary of State for Trade, 1978 Ch. 201(CA) : "The House of Lords and this court have repeatedly emphasized that the ordinary principles of natural justice must be kept flexible and must be adapted to the circumstances prevailing in any particular case". (Emphasis supplied) 31. Thus, it is well settled that the rules of natural justice are flexible. 201(CA) : "The House of Lords and this court have repeatedly emphasized that the ordinary principles of natural justice must be kept flexible and must be adapted to the circumstances prevailing in any particular case". (Emphasis supplied) 31. Thus, it is well settled that the rules of natural justice are flexible. The question to be asked in every case to determine whether the rules of natural justice have been violated is: have the authorities acted fairly? 32. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills etc. vs. Union of India etc. AIR 1981 SC 818 , this Court following the decision in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 851 held that the soul of the rule (natural justice) is fair play in action. 33. … … … … … … … 34. Originally there were said to be only two principles of natural justice : (1) the rule against bias and (2) the right to be heard (audi alteram pattern). However, subsequently, as noted in A.K. Kraipak's case (supra) and K.I. Shephard's case (supra), some more rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice, e.g. the requirement to give reasons vide S.N. Mukherji vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 . In Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (supra) (vide paragraphs 56 to 61) it was held that natural justice is part of Article 14 of the Constitution. 35. Thus natural justice has an expanding content and is not stagnant. It is therefore open to the Court to develop new principles of natural justice in appropriate cases.” (pp.735-736) 6. All that I need say is that when the appellate Authority was considering the case of the petitioner, he should and ought to have at least indicated the reasons as to why the absence was deliberate and the medical certificates furnished by him were not in order or were otherwise procured. The barest minimum required was to have indicated reasons as to why the explanation furnished/medical certificates were not acceptable. This did not require elaborate writing but qualitative reasoning. I am not adjudicating on the findings on merits. It has been recorded by the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies in his order (Annexure P-2) that:- “To pursue the case further respondent was afforded reasonable opportunity to plead his cause, hearings were held on different dates i.e. 09.03.2004, 17.04.2004, 07.05.2004 respectively. This did not require elaborate writing but qualitative reasoning. I am not adjudicating on the findings on merits. It has been recorded by the Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies in his order (Annexure P-2) that:- “To pursue the case further respondent was afforded reasonable opportunity to plead his cause, hearings were held on different dates i.e. 09.03.2004, 17.04.2004, 07.05.2004 respectively. During the course of hearing respondent neither attended the court on the above scheduled dates nor produced any documentary evidence before the undersigned. Moreover (sic) following the then Committee Members were examined:- S/Sh/Smt. 1. Ishwar Dass, Ex-President, 2. Puran Chand, Ex-Vice-President, 3. Dhian Singh, Ex-Cashier, 4. Ghanshyam Dass, Ex-Member, 5. Hukam Chand, Ex-President, 6. Om Parkash, Ex-Cashier, 7. Partap Chand, Ex-Member, 8. Anita Kumari, Ex-Member, 9. Swarna Devi, Ex-Member. All the committee members made a similar statement that nothing is known to them about enhancement of salary of Secretary, appointment of Assistant Secretary, issue of advances, hiring of office building & mis-utilisation/mis- appropriation/embezzlement of cash-in-hand for the last six years. They further stated that their signatures as committee members have been taken fraudulently and also made mention that their signatures have been forged by adding un-necessary resolutions for his own benefits without their consent. Even though some of them stated that they have not been properly elected as Committee Members. They ultimately held Secretary responsible for this mis-appropriation/mis-utilisation/ embezzlement. Now the total recoverable amount has been enhanced to Rs.123658/- which is required to be recovered from the respondent who has mis-utilised/mis- appropriated/embezzled the said amount directly/indirectly and caused huge losses to the society.” The law on the point is now well settled and the principles have been reaffirmed in Dev Dutt’s case supra. I need not reiterate these principles. 7. Without going into the merits of the case or submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this case is remanded to the appellate authority who shall proceed afresh in accordance with law to adjudicate the case or to determine, (a) whether ample opportunities have been granted to the petitioner to present his case; (b) whether his request for adjournment was genuine; (c) if so, he would be given an opportunity to present his case afresh. In case it is found that he has deliberately avoided service, in that event, the appellate authority will be free to determine the entire appeal afresh in accordance with law. In case it is found that he has deliberately avoided service, in that event, the appellate authority will be free to determine the entire appeal afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say that a false plea, when taken, requires to be dismissed with heavy costs. This law now stands settled in Indian Council for Enviro-legal Action vs. Union of India and Others, (2011)8 SCC 161 , the Supreme Court inter alia holds that:- “197. … … … … … … … … … … … … … . (1) … … … … … … … … … … … … . (2) … … … … … … … … … … … … (3) Unscrupulous litigants be prevented from taking undue advantage by invoking jurisdiction of the court. (4) … … … … … … … … … … … … . (5) … … … … … … … … … … … … . (6) a party cannot be allowed to take any benefit of his own wrongs. (7) Litigation should not be permitted to turn into a fruitful industry so that the unscrupulous litigants are encouraged to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. (8) The institution of litigation cannot be permitted to confer any advantage on a party by delayed action of courts. (p.247) 7. In case a litigant is found manipulating/abusing the process of law, exemplary costs can be imposed. In A. Shanmugam vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam represented by its President and Others, (2012)6 SCC 430 , the Supreme Court holds:- “FALSE AND IRRELEVANT PLEAS: 42. The appellant is also guilty of introducing untenable pleas. The plea of adverse possession which has no foundation or basis in the facts and circumstances of the case was introduced to gain undue benefit. The Court must be cautious in granting relief to a party guilty of deliberately introducing irrelevant and untenable pleas responsible for creating unnecessary confusion by introducing such documents and pleas. These factors must be taken into consideration while granting relief and/or imposing the costs. 43. On the facts of the present case, following principles emerge: 43.1. It is the bounden duty of the Court to uphold the truth and do justice. 43.2. Every litigant is expected to state truth before the law court whether it is pleadings, affidavits or evidence. These factors must be taken into consideration while granting relief and/or imposing the costs. 43. On the facts of the present case, following principles emerge: 43.1. It is the bounden duty of the Court to uphold the truth and do justice. 43.2. Every litigant is expected to state truth before the law court whether it is pleadings, affidavits or evidence. Dishonest and unscrupulous litigants have no place in law courts. 43.3. The ultimate object of the judicial proceedings is to discern the truth and do justice. It is imperative that pleadings and all other presentations before the court should be truthful. 43.4. Once the court discovers falsehood, concealment, distortion, obstruction or confusion in pleadings and documents, the court should in addition to full restitution impose appropriate costs. The court must ensure that there is no incentive for wrong doer in the temple of justice. Truth is the foundation of justice and it has to be the common endeavour of all to uphold the truth and no one should be permitted to pollute the stream of justice.” (pp.458-459) 8. Needless to say that a statutory authority, while adjudicating a lis, can also resort to these powers. In this case he comes to this conclusion that such a course had been adopted by a litigant. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, shall issue notice to the parties for a date for appearance before him and shall proceed with the case expeditiously. 9. All interim orders are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.