Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1167 (PNJ)

Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-09-10

RANJIT SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjit Singh, J.: - The petitioner has retired on 31.12.1993 from the services of Co-operative Societies, Patti as Inspector. Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies had revived Bhure Nau Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. On 09.04.1991 (hereinafter ‘B.N. Society’ for short). The petitioner, who was working as Inspector in another Society was appointed as Administrator of Bhure Nau Co-operative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. 2. The agricultural credit was not available to the farmers. The petitioner authorized the Secretary of the Society to enroll new members. The Secretary, accordingly, enrolled 89 new members. The Secretary then was Sh. Kulwant Singh whereas one Sh. Magar Singh, was the Inspector Incharge of the Society. As already noticed, the petitioner though was working as Inspector and the Incharge of another Society but was appointed as Administrator of B.N. Society where Inspector Magar Singh was working as Inspector. The petitioner remained as Administrator from 09.04.1991 to 08.10.1991 and new Managing Committee was elected on 26.11.1991. 3. Loans were advanced by the Society through the Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Branch Amarkot. The part of the loan was advanced in the shape of fertilizers against ‘B’ component cheques and part of loan was disbursed by the branch of the bank as cash. The petitioner states that cash or fertilizers belonging to the Society never came under the custody of the Society. However, recoveries were not received from number of the new members. 4. The respondent-Society then prepared arbitration references and appointed Magar Singh as Arbitrator. He was also the Inspector Incharge of B.N. Society. It is alleged that Magar Singh Arbitrator managed to get the petitioner impleaded as party to the dispute and then on the very first date of hearing, without affording any opportunity of hearing either to the petitioner or give him time to put up defences, allowed the Arbitration reference. The Arbitrator did not grant any adjournment to any of the parties. 5. The Arbitrator found that the loan had been correctly obtained by the loanee members but the same was not being returned. The finding also is that the Administrator did not get security from the Secretary and also did not verify that the members were living in area of operation of the society. In this manner, Arbitrator gave 24 awards against the petitioner and the others. The finding also is that the Administrator did not get security from the Secretary and also did not verify that the members were living in area of operation of the society. In this manner, Arbitrator gave 24 awards against the petitioner and the others. Out of 24 awards, 16 were set aside by the higher authorities in appeal and appeals against remaining 8 awards were dismissed by the Assistant Registrar, Patti. The revision petitions were filed before the Additional Secretary to Government of Punjab under Section 69 of the Act. These petitions were also dismissed. 6. The petitioner claims that the Administrator was not the necessary party and could not have been impleaded as such in dispute under Section 55 of the Act. The Administrator was to act as representative of the Registrar and for any acts done on his authority and he is entitled to be indemnified under Section 84 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. It is also pointed out that the loan obtained by respondents No. 5 to 8 were repaid to the society and loan to respondents No. 9 to 12 had not been granted during the tenure of the petitioner as Administrator. As per the counsel, the petitioner was a government employee and officiated as Administrator of the Co-operative society as statutory functionary. He had no private relationship with the business of society. The petitioner, accordingly, pleads that the awards standing against him and which have been upheld, cannot be sustained. 7. During the course of arguments, it transpires that the Arbitrator appointed in this case, who has given these 8 impugned awards, is no other Magar Singh but who was the Inspector of the same society. Not only this, it is pointed out that Magar Singh was also the one, who had identified various loanees and, thus, could not have been in any fair position to be the judge of the cause if any loan had remained unpaid. It is, in this context, pointed out that he made the petitioner as a party only on account of spite and vengeance whereas the petitioner as an Administrator could not be held responsible in any manner. 8. I have perused the impugned awards. All the awards have been passed by Magar Singh as an Administrator, who has also described himself as Inspector B.N. Co-operative Society. 8. I have perused the impugned awards. All the awards have been passed by Magar Singh as an Administrator, who has also described himself as Inspector B.N. Co-operative Society. This plea, apparently, has not been taken in the petition and this is precise objection which the State counsel has raised in response to query by the Court whether such a person could fairly and independently act as a Judge, to give these awards. 9. No reply otherwise has been filed on behalf of the Sate. It is pleaded that basically it is the respondent-Society, who has to defend this writ petition. The reply on behalf of respondent No. 4/ Society is filed. The preliminary objection is raised in regard to the maintainability of the writ petition in the present form. It is then stated that the petitioner is Government officer appointed to supervise this society and so was responsible for working of the Society. It is otherwise not disputed that the Secretary of the Co-operative Society who prepares the enrolment of different members in the Society on the basis of real facts of such persons, as per their holdings, professions and as per their assets and property etc. It is the Secretary, who directly and personally knows the member and has to complete with the formalities. The responsibilities to check, scrutinize and confirm the working of the Secretary is stated to be on the Administrator/Inspector of the Co-operative Society, who is the government official under the Cooperative Department of the State. Accordingly, it is urged that the Administrator/Inspector is equally, fully and absolutely responsible for good and bad working of the Society. The enrolment of the members might have been prepared by the Secretary but the documentary record was put under the charge of Administrator and was required to be checked and confirm before he endorsed his signatures thereon. Other objections, accordingly, are raised and it is pleaded that the petitioner has rightly been fastened with the responsibility in the impugned awards. 10. I need not detain myself much in regard to the merits or even on the aspect relating to duties and responsibilities of the Administrator. What is disturbing feature in this case is the action of the official respondent to appoint Magar Singh, who was the Inspector of the same society as Arbitrator. 10. I need not detain myself much in regard to the merits or even on the aspect relating to duties and responsibilities of the Administrator. What is disturbing feature in this case is the action of the official respondent to appoint Magar Singh, who was the Inspector of the same society as Arbitrator. If the reply filed on behalf of the Society is minutely analyzed, it would show that the Administrator as well as the Inspector of the Co-operative Societies working in the Society are equally responsible for functioning for the Society. This is even as per the respondent-society. If the petitioner, who was the Administrator, is to be held responsible for disbursement of this loan or enrolment of these members, then similar responsibility has to be fastened on the part of Magar Singh who was the Inspector of the same Society. Indeed, it is pleaded in petition that Magar Singh himself had also been responsible for enrolling the members whereas the petitioner had performed the duties of Administrator for limited period from 09.04.1991 to 08.10.1991. It is also pointed out that the loans to the members, who were so enrolled, were advanced subsequent to the tenure of the petitioner as Administrator and at that time Magar Singh was working as Inspector of the Society. How could such a person be detailed to be a Judge to decide the lis or the allegation made against the petitioner for enrolling such members or disbursement of loan, which took place during his tenure as Inspector. Even as per the Society, the Inspector of the Society is fully responsible for enrolment as well as for functioning of the Society. That being the position, Magar Singh clearly had an interest in this case and, thus, his finding that the petitioner was responsible to whatever extent, would suffer not only from bias but from want of fairness on his part to decide independently. Such an award by a person, who has been made a Judge of his own cause, would clearly be in violation of principle of natural justice. One of the accepted principle of natural justice is that ‘No one can be a judge of his own cause’. Such an award by a person, who has been made a Judge of his own cause, would clearly be in violation of principle of natural justice. One of the accepted principle of natural justice is that ‘No one can be a judge of his own cause’. If Magar Singh, who was detailed a Administrator, was a person, who was working as Inspector of the same society and infact was responsible for disbursing the loan, some of which have remained unrealised, or that he was also responsible for enrolment of the members. How could independent assessment be expected from him to determine the responsibility of others? 11. In this petition, the petitioner alone has challenged the awards. The plea of the petitioner is justified that independent assessment of his role by such Arbitrator is in violation of principle of natural justice. appears genuine and fair. Accordingly, the present petition would deserve to be allowed only on this ground without further going in any of the issues that may arise in writ petition. 12. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The responsibility and the award to an extent, it has made the petitioner responsible and accountable, is set aside and quashed. The remaining portion of the awards in all the 8 impugned awards shall remain as has not been subjected to any challenge before me.