ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The Chachian Agriculture Service Co-operative Society Ltd. and members of the managing committee or their legal representatives are the appellants. The appellants assail the order dated 08.01.2019 passed in CMPMO No. 270 of 2017 in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla. The issue arises under Section 69 of the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1971(for short, 'the Act'). To appreciate the limited ground of canvass by the appellants, a few of the circumstances or chronologically adverted to. 3. One Lekh Raj, the husband of respondent No.1 in the Civil Appeal worked as the Secretary of the appellant No.1-Agricultural Service Co-operative Society. Admittedly, on 18.09.2012, the husband/Lekh Raj expired. On 21.11.2012, Inspector, Chanchian was Co-operative Society, Village, appointed as Inquiry Officer under Section 69(1) of the Act to inquire into the alleged misappropriation/embezzlement of amount of the society by the husband of the respondent No.1. It is not clear from the record as to who responded to the show cause notices issued by the Inquiry Officer or what is the reply on each one of the allegations. On 11.02.2013, the I.O. submitted the inquiry report and on 14.10.2013, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Society/respondent(s) determined the liability of Lekh Raj in the following terms:- " Keeping in view above narrated facts I, Sudhir Katoch, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Palampur exercising powers vested under Section 69(2) of the HP Co-operative Societies Act 1968 (Act No.3 of 1969) order that Late Sh. Lekh Raj Secretary/Salesman is liable for embezzlement/misappropriation of Rs.9,45,834.57 paise and further order Smt. Sudesh Kumari wife of late Sh. Lekh Raj, Secretary/Salesman to make settlement of Rs.9,45,834.57 paise by paying to the Chachian Agr. Service Society within three months. Non payment within the stipulated period will fetch 12 percent till full and final settlement. In the event of failure of Smt. Sudesh Kumari wife of Late Sh. Lekh Raj to pay abovesaid amount to the society, The society will have the right to recover the same from movable and immovable property as land revenue. Out of entire amount if any fraction of amount remain un-recovered from sale of property of late Sh. Lekh Raj, in that event its recovery shall be made from immediate members of society to say Saravshri Vinor Kumar, President, Dehnju Ram, member, Roop Lal, member and Smt. Swarn Devi w/o Sh. Kashmir Chand in equal shares." (emphasis added) 4. Out of entire amount if any fraction of amount remain un-recovered from sale of property of late Sh. Lekh Raj, in that event its recovery shall be made from immediate members of society to say Saravshri Vinor Kumar, President, Dehnju Ram, member, Roop Lal, member and Smt. Swarn Devi w/o Sh. Kashmir Chand in equal shares." (emphasis added) 4. The respondent No.1 against the surcharge order filed an appeal before the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Society, Himachal Pradesh and by an order dated 07.02.2017, the order dated 14.10.2013 of the Assistant Registrar has been slightly modified while disposing of the appeal. 5. We are of the view that the modified portion need not be excepted inasmuch as respondent No.1 challenging the order dated 14.10.2013 filed CMPMO No. 270 of 2017 before the High Court. The High Court through the impugned order has allowed the writ petition. 6. Before we take up the two grounds canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is useful to refer to the operative portion of the order impugned which reads thus:- "(iv) however, when the inquiry had not yet progressed, and rather during the pendency thereof, the derelicting employee has hence expired, and, when hence, the relevant imputation, of, misconduct, of, embezzlement qua him, remains not firmly established, hence the afore conditional purported confession, is, not useable against the estate, of, the deceased derelicting employee. Consequently, the afore exception, is of no avail to the learned counsel, for, the respondent." 7. We have heard Mr. Gaurav Sharma, counsel for the appellants, Mr. Kunal Chatterji, counsel for the respondent No.1, Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Singh and Mr. Himanshu Tyagi, counsel for the respondent No.6 and 7. 8. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, appearing for the appellants contends that the then Secretary of the Society since has committed embezzlement of society funds, the legal representatives of the Secretary are under obligation to discharge the determined amount proportionate to the extent of assets of the Secretary in their hands. The principle of criminal jurisprudence, to proceed against legal representatives in departmental inquiry is different and the surcharge proceedings are different. Alternatively it is argued that the order impugned has committed an error by directing the recovery of the amount determined from the then the members of the managing committee of the society. 9. Mr. The principle of criminal jurisprudence, to proceed against legal representatives in departmental inquiry is different and the surcharge proceedings are different. Alternatively it is argued that the order impugned has committed an error by directing the recovery of the amount determined from the then the members of the managing committee of the society. 9. Mr. Kunal Chatterjee, in reply, contends that the initiation of surcharge proceedings under Section 69 of the Act is firstly against the legal representatives of the deceased Secretary. The inquiry for determining the alleged embezzlement is said to have happened post the demise of the Secretary. For all purposes, the representation of the respondent No.1 in the inquiry conducted by the Inspector cannot be treated as an inquiry conforming to the requirements of principles of natural justice and rules. He further contends that the District Registrar proceeded on the presumption that the Secretary has confessed to the alleged embezzlement and therefore, a finding on surcharge is warranted. According to him, on the demise of the Secretary, the report and the consequential orders cannot rely on a confession said to have been made by a dead person and levy Rs.9,45,834.57 paise as surcharge. Alternatively, it is argued that the order impugned in no way refers to a direction having been issued to proceed against the then members of the co-operative society. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the State invites our attention to the findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned order and submits that the State has not filed an appeal against the order impugned and the Court considers the prayers. 11. We have perused the record and have taken note of the contentions. The larger question, in the facts and circumstances, whether the department is justified in proceeding against the legal representatives of the deceased Secretary need not be gone into by us in the statutory scheme of Section 69 of the Act. 12. As noticed earlier, the inquiry has been initiated after the demise of the Secretary. For that matter, the surcharge orders rely on, the alleged confession of the Secretary vis-a-vis the amounts for which such proceedings have been initiated. We are clear in our appreciation that the embezzlement or defalcation by the persons covered by the Act must be recovered in accordance with the surcharge proceedings. For that matter, the surcharge orders rely on, the alleged confession of the Secretary vis-a-vis the amounts for which such proceedings have been initiated. We are clear in our appreciation that the embezzlement or defalcation by the persons covered by the Act must be recovered in accordance with the surcharge proceedings. But before the recovery is effected, there is obligation fastened on the Inquiry Officer to conform to the principles of natural justice and the requirements of the applicable rules. The finding recorded by the High Court is that the misconduct, embezzlement etc. qua the Secretary are not firmly established. The purported confession cannot be used against the first respondent. The first respondent in effect is held to answer a liability said to have been confessed by her deceased husband. This approach by the Assistant Registrar is untenable. 13. The other argument that a direction is issued to proceed against members or managing committee is not reflected in the order impugned in the terms argued before us. Hence, if such an understanding is entertained by the authority/society or the members of the managing committee are at appropriate stage, raise objections in fact and law and the Authorities are under obligation to consider such objections and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. 14. Therefore, we are in agreement with the view taken by the High Court and the order impugned does not warrant our interference. 15. The present civil appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.