JUDGMENT Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia J.: - The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the orders dated 14.08.1991, Annexure P-4 whereby the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Panipat had ordered the recovery of Rs.7497/- from the petitioner along with interest of 18% per annum from the date of embezzlement and the said order has been upheld in appeal on 23.03.1992(Annexure P-5) by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karnal and subsequently, the revision was dismissed on 10.11.1993(Annexure P-6) by the Deputy Secretary, Cooperation, Haryana. 2. The case of the petitioner is that while working as a Secretary of the respondent No.4-Society, the Society had initiated proceedings against Ajmer Singh, respondent No.5 who was working as Salesman in the said Society since Ajmer Singh had committed acts of omission and commission by defrauding the members of the Society and it was brought to the notice of the authorities that he was not performing his duties in accordance with the Act, Rules and bye laws. 3. An explanation was sought by the petitioner from Ajmer Singh on 01.06.1990 (Annexure P-1) and he was asked to deposit the embezzled amount within 3 days. It was further pleaded that the matter was enquired into by the Sub-Inspector, Cooperative Societies, Jalmana and enquiry report dated 27.12.1990 was also submitted that the salesman-respondent No.5 had embezzled a sum of Rs.11,145/- by issuing fictitious cheques and copy of the same was sent to the Secretary for necessary action. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the said salesman-respondent No.5 on 02.01.1991 (Annexure P-3) while placing reliance upon the report dated 27.12.1990 that his explanation had been found unsatisfactory and if he wanted to say anything, he should reply within 15 days after which legal action was to be taken. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the said salesman-respondent No.5 on 02.01.1991 (Annexure P-3) while placing reliance upon the report dated 27.12.1990 that his explanation had been found unsatisfactory and if he wanted to say anything, he should reply within 15 days after which legal action was to be taken. Reliance was also placed upon the resolution of the Society dated 28.10.1990 wherein it was resolved that Ajmer Singh had issued 3 cheques in the name of the members of the Society for Rs.11,145/- and not deposited the same and he had made a sale of fertilizer for a sum of Rs.9,246/- and deposited Rs.4,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.5,246/- was outstanding against him and thus, there was a dispute in the Society against Ajmer Singh and the Assistant Registrar was requested to decide the dispute under Sections 102 and 103 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984 (for brevity, ‘the Act’). It was, accordingly, pleaded that in pursuance of the resolution, arbitration proceedings were initiated against Ajmer Singh by the Society under Section 102 of the Act and there was no reference against the petitioner but the Assistant Registrar wrongly impleaded the petitioner as a party suo moto and without giving any findings and without any reference by the Society, passed the order whereby liability was fixed upon the petitioner and the Assistant Registrar ordered recovery of Rs.7,457/- along with interest @ 18% per annum vide order dated 14.08.1991. 4. As noticed above, the orders were upheld in appeal by the Deputy Registrar and thereafter, in revision by the Deputy Secretary, Cooperation, Haryana. Resultantly, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the ground that there was no reference against him under Section 102 of the Act, and therefore, the order of recovery is not sustainable against him. 5. The writ petition was admitted for regular hearing on 10.10.1994 and the arrest of the petitioner was stayed. No written statement has been filed by any of the respondents. The State counsel has supported the reasoning given by the authorities which in the considered opinion of this Court are not acceptable. 6. 5. The writ petition was admitted for regular hearing on 10.10.1994 and the arrest of the petitioner was stayed. No written statement has been filed by any of the respondents. The State counsel has supported the reasoning given by the authorities which in the considered opinion of this Court are not acceptable. 6. Admittedly, the recovery process was initiated firstly by the petitioner as Secretary/Manager of the Society by asking an explanation on 01.06.1990 from respondent No.5, Ajmer Singh and directing him to deposit the embezzled amount and thereafter, the Sub-Inspector, Cooperative Society conducted an enquiry against respondent No.5 and came to an adverse conclusion against him that he had embezzled Rs.11,145/-. On the strength of the resolution dated 28.10.1990 passed by the Society, proceedings were initiated against Ajmer Singh under Section 102 & 103 of the Act. Thereafter, a show cause notice was also issued by the petitioner being the Secretary of the Cooperative Society on 02.01.1991(Annexure P-3). A perusal of the impugned order dated 14.08.1991 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, Panipat goes on to show that the Society was seeking to recover the amount from Ajmer Singh and was represented by the present petitioner, Dharam Pal, being the Secretary and he had also been arrayed as a respondent on the basis of an application filed by Ajmer Singh which was accepted on 15.01.1991. Thus, the procedure followed by the Assistant Registrar was itself strange whereby he had allowed the application of the debtor and impleaded the creditor also as respondent and thereafter, decided the case against him. Admittedly, the Society itself was prosecuting the arbitration proceedings through the petitioner, Dharam Pal and there was no such allegation against the petitioner that he had misappropriated the amount or was responsible in any way. Therefore, the action of the Assistant Registrar in impleading the Secretary as a respondent and making him liable to pay the amount cannot be accepted. Once the Society itself was not aggrieved against the Secretary and had not passed any resolution to take any action against him, he could not have been held liable by the Assistant Registrar by impleading him as a respondent. 7. Once the Society itself was not aggrieved against the Secretary and had not passed any resolution to take any action against him, he could not have been held liable by the Assistant Registrar by impleading him as a respondent. 7. The petitioner agitated his claim by filing an appeal that Ajmer Singh was responsible for keeping the register of sale of fertilizer but the said appeal was wrongly rejected on the ground that the salesman of the Society was subordinate to the Secretary and he was responsible for the safety of the books and to supervise the staff of the Society. Similar was the finding recorded by the Deputy Secretary while dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner. As noticed above, no written statement has been filed and therefore, the pleadings which have been made by the petitioner are deemed to be admitted. The procedure followed by the Assistant Registrar is thus, found to be an arbitrary once the Society itself had no claim against the petitioner-Secretary and therefore, fixing the liability upon the petitioner would not arise as the Society itself had not resolved to recover any amount from the petitioner. Mr.Dalal has referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court titled as Brij Kishore Arora Vs. Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh, 1993 (3) PLR 340 wherein it has been held that in the absence of a resolution of a Committee, no dispute can be referred for arbitration and that the passing of a resolution is not an empty formality. Thus, in view of the fact that the Society itself had not passed any resolution against the petitioner, the authorities, under the Act, could not fix any liability against him and had no jurisdiction to make him liable to pay the amount. 8. In the facts and circumstances, the said amount of Rs.7497/- was to be recovered from respondent No.5, Ajmer Singh as the initial claim was only against him and the petitioner could not have been held liable. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 14.08.1991 (Annexure P-4), 23.03.1992(Annexure P-5) and 10.11.1993 (Annexure P-6) whereby recovery had been ordered against the petitioner are set aside.