Bombay High Court
ISHWARDAS PREMRAJ CHORDIA DECD THRU LHR SHRI. PRATEEK AJAY CHORDIAversusTHE AUTHORISED OFFICER, RUPEE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND DIRECTOR OF SUGAR , MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the earlier inquiry and appellate orders were defective for failing to comply with Section 88 and Rule 72, and therefore must be set aside and the matter remanded for a fresh, properly reasoned adjudication.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered a series of writ petitions filed by directors, expert directors, relatives and others of Rupee Co‑operative Bank Ltd seeking relief from an order dated 2 February 2016 made by the Authorized Officer under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960, which imposed personal liability for losses suffered by the bank. The Court found that the Inquiry Officer’s order, and the subsequent confirmation by the Appellate Authority, lacked specific findings, failed to frame clear charges, did not afford the petitioners a proper opportunity to defend themselves, and did not establish a causal link between each petitioner’s conduct and the alleged loss, thereby violating Rule 72 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 and principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court set aside both the Inquiry Officer’s and Appellate Authority’s orders and remanded the matter to the Authorized Officer for a fresh inquiry in accordance with the statutory procedure, also directing that any attached properties be released upon application. The Court clarified that the determination of individual liability must be made by the Authorized Officer on the basis of evidence, and extended the time for the fresh inquiry by one year.
Issues considered
- Whether the order of the Authorized Officer under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act, 1960, is valid in view of the lack of specific findings and procedural safeguards.
- Whether the Appellate Authority’s confirmation of the Inquiry Officer’s order is legally sustainable.
- Whether a composite inquiry covering both employees and directors can be remanded and re‑conducted.
- Whether personal liability of directors and expert directors can be determined in writ proceedings under Articles 226/227.
- Whether the attachment of petitioners’ immovable properties should be stayed pending a fresh inquiry.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Section 88
- personal liability
- co-operative bank
- inquiry
- Rule 72
- natural justice
- attachment of property
- remand
- writ jurisdiction
- appeal
Judgment
Renuka Thakur 9-WP-13055-2026.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 13055 OF 2026
Gajanan Heramb Deo ...Petitioner
V/s.
State Of Maharashtra Dept of Co Op ...Respondents
Represented Thr Additional Chief
Secretary and Ors
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11140 OF 2022
Smt. Gayatridevi Ganpatrao ...Petitioner
Patwardhan
V/s.
State Of Maharashtra Dept Of Co Op ...Respondents
Represented Thr Additional Chief
Secretary and Ors
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8272 OF 2022
Shriram Baburao Yadav ...Petitioner
V/s.
The Authorised Officer Rupee Co- Op. ...Respondents
Bank Ltd Pune and Ors
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4892 OF 2023
Sama Dinesh Kulkarni ...Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra through the ...Respondent
Secretary and Ors.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10934 OF 2022
Page No.1 of 15
8 OCTOBER 2026
Renuka Thakur 9-WP-13055-2026.docx
Ishwardas Premraj Chordia Decd ...Petitioner
Through Lhr Shri. Prateek Ajay
Chordia
V/s.
The Authorised Officer Rupee Co- Op. ...Respondent
Bank Ltd Pune and Ors
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.11705 OF 2022
Late Kashinath Gangadhar Pemgirikar ...Petitioner
Decd. Thr. Lhrs Sandeep Kashinath
Pemgirikar
V/s.
Addi. Chief Secretary State Of ...Respondents
Maharashtra Thr. Ministry Of Co-Op
and Ors
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 16997 OF 2022
Madhav Vishnu Natu Since Dec Thr ...Petitioner
Legal Heirs
V/s.
State of Maharashtra through Minister ...Respondent
for Co.op and Ors.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.10193 OF 2024
Madhav Narayan Bhandare Since Dec ...Petitioner
Thr His Lr Shriv Allabh Madhav
Bhandare And Anr
V/s.
The Authorised Officer Rupee Co Op ...Respondent
Bank Ltd. And Ors
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4899 OF 2023
Page No.2 of 15
8 OCTOBER 2026
Renuka Thakur 9-WP-13055-2026.docx
Mr. Dinesh Kulkarni ...Petitioner
V/s.
The State Of Maharashtra Thru The ...Respondents
Secretary, Dept. of Co-Op. , Marketing
And Textiles And Ors
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 11819 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 6914 OF 2022
Shashikumar Keshav Bhide ...Applicant/Petitioner
V/s.
The Authorised Officer Rupee Co-Op ...Respondent
Bank Ltd and Ors
________________
Mr.Sagar Amrut Rane for Petitioner in WP 13055/2026
Mr. Rohan Savant with Mr. Rishabh Jadhav 1/by Parinam Law Associates
for Petitioner in WP 11140/2022
Mr.S.C.Wakankar for Petitioner in WP 6914/2022, WP 10193/2024 & WP
16294/2024
Mr.G.H.Keluskar, for Petitioner in WP 8272/2022
Mr.Mr.Rohan Savant with Ms. Manorama Mohanty & Ms. Malika Mondal
i/by S KSrivastava & Co.for Petitioner in WP 4892/2023 & WP 4899/2023
Mr.Shriniwas S. Patwardhan with Ms.Mrinal Shelar & Mr.A.V.Hardas
forPetitioner in WP 10934/2022
Mr.Shailendra S. Kanetkar with Mr. Nikhil Dongre & Mr.Abhishek
Wakhle for Pertitioner in WP(ST)11705/2022.
Mr.S.S.Panchpor with Ms. Mahima Sharma & Mr. Parmeshwar Andil for
Petitioner in WP(ST)16997/2022.
Mr.Pramod Patil with Mr. Ajit Hon, Mr. Atharva i/by PNP & Deshmukh,
Mr. Ramesh Deshmukh Associates for Respondent Rupee Co-operative
Bank.
Ms.S.D. Chipade, AGP for Respondent-State
Mr.P.G.Sawant, AGP for Respondent-State
Ms. Snehal S. Jadhav, AGP for Respondent-State
Ms.S.R. Crasto, AGP for Respondent-State
Ms.M. S. Srivastava, AGP for Respondent-State
Mr.P.V.Nelson-Rajan, AGP for Respondent-State
Page No.3 of 15
8 OCTOBER 2026
Renuka Thakur 9-WP-13055-2026.docx
Ms.P.J.Gavhane, AGP for Respondent-State.
Ms. A.A-Nadkarni AGP for All Respondent-state.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 8 OCTOBER 2026.
P.C.:
1) These Petitions involve similar challenges to the action of
the Rupee Bank Ltd. in seeking to recover from the Petitioner, the
amount of losses suffered by it from the elected directors, expert
directors, relatives of ex-directors, etc. The Petitions are moved
contending that the same need to be disposed of in the light of this
Court remanding the proceeding of the inquiry relating to the
employees. Writ Petition No. 16294 of 2024 is not on record at the
request of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the same is
taken on record for analogous hearing with other similar Petitions.
2) The Interim Application No. 11819 of 2025 in Writ Petition
NO. 6914 of 2022 is filed for bringing on record legal heirs of the
Petitioner who has passed away during pendency of the Petition. For the
reasons indicated in the Application, the same is allowed. Legal
representatives of the Petitioner are permitted to be brought on record.
Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Interim Application is disposed
of.
Page No.4 of 15
8 OCTOBER 2026
Renuka Thakur 9-WP-13055-2026.docx
3) The Petitioners in this Petitions are essentially aggrieved by
the order of the Inquiry Officer dated 2 February 2016 passed under
Section 88 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (MCS
Act) apportioning the alleged amount of losses suffered by the Bank for
the purpose of recovery thereof against the Petitioners. Except Writ
Petition (Stamp) No. 16997 of 2022, the other eight Petitions are filed by
elected directors of the Bank who are held personally liable for
repayment of amount of loss caused to the Bank.
4) Writ Petition (stamp) No. 16997 of 2022 is filed by expert
director nominated on the board of the Bank who believes that he does
not have any personal liability to recoup the amount of alleged losses
suffered by the Bank. Writ Petition No. 4892 of 2023 is filed by the
daughter-in-law of the ex-director who is aggrieved by an order of
attachment of her properties. So far as Writ Petition No. 16294 of 2024 is
concerned. The same is filed by the grandson of the original director
raising a grievance that his gifted property has been attached.
5) It appears that a common inquiry was conducted by the
Inquiry Officer under Section 88 of the MCS Act which led to passing of a
common order dated 2 February 2016. The order covers both employees
of the Bank as well as the directors. The order passed by the Inquiry
Officer has been confirmed in Appeal by the State Government.
6) It appears that employees of the Bank filed a bunch of
Petitions in this Court (Writ Petition No. 10750 of 2022 Sanjiv Bhaskar
Pathak V/s State of Maharashtra ) which are decided by this Court by
Page No.5 of 15
8 OCTOBER 2026
Renuka Thakur 9-WP-13055-2026.docx
judgment and order dated 17 October 2025. This Court has found several
infirmities in the order passed by the Inquiry Officer. It would be
apposite to reproduce the findings recorded by this Court in paragraphs
115 to 143 of the judgment, which read thus:-
115. Having considered the rival submissions and upon examining the
record, I find that the matter requires remand to the Authorized Officer
for fresh consideration for the following reasons, each supported by the
material and the settled legal principles governing proceedings under
Section 88 of the MCS Act, 1960 and Rule 72 of the Maharashtra
Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961.
116. The order passed by the Authorized Officer does not contain any
clear or specific finding showing what exact act or omission by each
petitioner caused the Bank to suffer financial loss. The findings are
written in general terms and treat all persons alike, without
distinguishing between the decision-making powers of the Managing
Committee and the limited administrative roles of the officers. The law
requires the Registrar or Authorized Officer to find, on the basis of
evidence, that a particular act or omission by each officer amounted to
misfeasance, breach of trust, or negligence, and that it directly caused
measurable loss to the society. Unless these elements are clearly proved
and recorded, no personal liability can be fastened on anyone.
117. A officer working as a manager performs administrative functions
such as verifying documents, preparing notes, and forwarding proposals
for approval. The final authority to sanction or reject the proposal rests
with the Managing Committee or Board of Directors. Unless there is
evidence that the officer acted dishonestly, manipulated records, or
knowingly concealed facts to favour a borrower, he cannot be said to
have committed misfeasance or breach of trust. The Authorized
Officer's order does not refer to any such material. It does not show
which proposal was wrongly recommended, what irregularity was
overlooked, or how that led to actual loss.
118. This omission strikes at the very root of the proceedings. Section
88 deals with personal liability, not collective or assumed responsibility.
A finding that "officers participated in management" is too vague to
establish culpability. The law does not punish officers merely for being
part of the process, it punishes only those whose conduct is proved to
have caused wrongful loss to the society.
119. Such lack of analysis has caused serious miscarriage of justice.
When a statute like Section 88 imposes personal monetary liability, the
findings must be based on concrete evidence, not on assumptions or
Page No.6 of 15
8 OCTOBER 2026
Renuka Thakur 9-WP-13055-2026.docx
collective generalisations. The liability under Section 88 is not
vicarious. It cannot be inferred merely because a officer held a position
in the Bank when the irregularity occurred. Each person's responsibility
must be individually determined, with reasons recorded and supported
by documents or witness evidence.
120. Therefore, the findings in the impugned order do not meet the
legal standard required for holding a officer liable under Section 88. The
orders fail to show the connection between the petitioner's conduct and
the loss suffered by the Bank. The absence of such clear and specific
reasoning renders the conclusions unsustainable in law.
121. Rule 72 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, 1961 lays
down a clear and structured procedure for conducting an inquiry under
Section 88 of the MCS Act, 1960.
122. First, specific charges must be framed against the officer
concerned. Each charge must clearly mention the nature of the alleged
act or omission, the date or period during which it occurred, and the
extent of loss alleged to have been caused to the society. This helps the
officer understand exactly what misconduct he is being accused of.
123. Second, the officer must be given copies of all supporting
documents and particulars relied upon by the authority, so that he can
properly prepare his defence. The right to defend oneself effectively
includes the right to know the exact case one has to meet.
124. Third, the rule requires that the officer should be given a
reasonable opportunity to file his written statement and to produce his
own documents or witnesses in support of his defence. He must also be
allowed to cross-examine witnesses produced by the society or the
Authorized Officer.
125. Finally, findings must be recorded separately on each charge. The
Authorized Officer has to discuss the evidence, weigh the submissions
of both sides, and give a clear conclusion for every charge, whether it is
proved, partly proved, or not proved. This is necessary to show that the
decision was made after applying mind to each allegation, and not on a
general impression or collective assumption.
126. However, in the present case, the material on record shows that
these safeguards were not properly followed. Although notices were
issued to the petitioners, the order passed by the Authorized Officer
does not show whether each charge was properly framed or supported
by evidence. There is no discussion showing what evidence was
examined for each specific allegation or how the defence of the
petitioners was considered.
Page No.7 of 15
8 OCTOBER 2026
Renuka Thakur 9-WP-13055-2026.docx
127. The absence of such a detailed and reasoned finding shows lack of
application of mind. It prevents the Court from understanding how the
conclusions were reached and whether they are supported by evidence.
Such an order cannot stand scrutiny, because it fails to satisfy the
requirement of a "speaking order", which must show the reasoning
behind the decision.
128. In proceedings under Section 88, where serious civil consequences
follow, the inquiry must strictly conform to Rule 72. When liability is
fixed without identifying which charge is proved and without recording
specific findings supported by credible evidence, the order becomes
incomplete and unsustainable in law.
129. In any quasi-judicial proceeding, especially one under Section 88
of the MCS Act, findings cannot rest merely on general references to
examination of witnesses. The authority is expected to discuss the
evidence in detail. It must show what the witness stated, which
documents supported his statement, and whether such evidence was
credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish liability. The order in
this case does not contain any such discussion. Without analysing
evidence, the conclusions drawn lose their foundation in law.
130. The petitioners had, on their part, filed detailed written statements
denying the allegations and had raised specific defences. They had
pointed out that they were not sanctioning authorities, that their role
was limited to forwarding or recommending proposals, and that no
material showed any dishonest intention or misfeasance on their part.
These defences went to the root of the matter and required specific
consideration. However, there is nothing in the impugned order to show
that these defences were examined or answered. The omission to
consider them violates the basic principles of natural justice.
131. When a statutory authority is empowered to decide questions
involving civil consequences, it acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. This
means it must record reasons, and base its conclusions on evidence
placed on record. Recording of reasons is not a formality. It
demonstrates application of mind, and allows the appellate or
reviewing authority to understand how the decision was reached. An
order that fails to disclose reasoning or assessment of evidence cannot
be upheld merely because the authority refers to the existence of a
witness or document.
132. In the present case, the order contains conclusions but no
reasoning. It does not explain how the oral evidence of the Bank's
witness or the documentary evidence proved against the petitioners
establishes misfeasance, negligence, or breach of trust. It also does not
Page No.8 of 15
8 OCTOBER 2026
Renuka Thakur 9-WP-13055-2026.docx
specify which part of the petitioners' defence was rejected and why. The
absence of such reasoning makes the findings purely conclusory and
not judicially sustainable.
133. Therefore, the omission of the Authorized Officer to analyse the
evidence, to evaluate the credibility of the Bank's witness, and to deal
with the specific defences raised by the petitioners, renders the order
defective in law. The findings thus recorded cannot be treated as a valid
determination of liability under Section 88. The matter must, therefore,
be reconsidered by the competent authority after a proper and reasoned
evaluation of all oral and documentary evidence, and after addressing
each defence specifically in accordance with law.
134. In the present case, the order of the appellate authority does not
show how this connection was established. The order merely states that
the petitioners "participated in management" or "processed proposals"
which allegedly led to loss, but it does not explain how such
participation caused that loss. There is no detailed computation or
reasoning showing how the total loss was calculated, nor how much of
that loss is attributable to the act of each petitioner.
135. For example, when a Bank or cooperative society suffers loss on
account of loans turning bad, it is necessary to show that the loans were
sanctioned due to a wrongful recommendation or negligence of a
specific officer, that such act violated rules or bye-laws, and that but for
such act, the loss would not have occurred. This causal link must be
demonstrated through documents, minutes of meetings, or audit
reports. Mere assumption that the officer's involvement "must have"
contributed to the loss is not enough.
136. The order passed by the Appellate Authority also suffers from a
clear lack of independent reasoning and proper application of mind.
Instead of re-examining the findings of the Authorized Officer as
required by law, the Appellate Authority has merely repeated the same
conclusions without any separate or independent analysis. The order
reads more like an endorsement than an adjudication.
137. Under Section 152 of the MCS Act, the Appellate Authority has a
distinct and important duty. It is not expected to mechanically approve
what the lower authority has done. Its role is to review the legality,
propriety, and correctness of the order under appeal, both on facts and
on law. The appellate authority must satisfy itself that the procedure
prescribed under Rule 72 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies
Rules, 1961 has been strictly followed, that the findings of the
Authorized Officer are supported by credible evidence, and that the
conclusions drawn are proportionate.
Page No.9 of 15
8 OCTOBER 2026
Renuka Thakur 9-WP-13055-2026.docx
138. In the present case, there is no indication that such scrutiny was
carried out. The Appellate Authority has not examined whether the
Authorized Officer had framed specific charges as required under Rule
72, whether the petitioners were given full opportunity to defend
themselves, or whether the evidence relied upon was sufficient and
reliable. The appellate order is silent on these crucial procedural
safeguards, which are the foundation of any valid inquiry under Section
88.
139. Another serious omission is the absence of discussion on
proportionality of liability. Section 88 permits recovery only to the
extent of loss caused by each person's individual act. The Appellate
Authority should have examined whether the liability fixed on each
petitioner was proportionate to his role and responsibility. Instead, it
accepted the findings of collective liability without considering whether
all officers bore the same degree of fault or whether their functions
were distinct.
140. This shows a complete absence of independent application of
mind. The Appellate Authority's duty is quasi-judicial, it must Own
weigh evidence, analyze defences, and arrive at its conclusion. By
merely reproducing the reasoning of the Authorized Officer without
engaging with the issues raised in appeal, the authority failed to
perform its statutory role.
141. Such an approach defeats the very purpose of appellate scrutiny.
The appellate stage is meant to correct mistakes of fact or law
committed by the lower authority and to ensure that justice is done.
When the Appellate Authority fails to examine whether the basic
procedural requirements were followed, or whether findings were based
on credible evidence, it compounds the error instead of correcting it.
142. In proceedings that impose personal financial liability, the
Appellate Authority must act with great care and precision. It must
discuss (i) Whether the inquiry under Rule 72 was lawful. (ii) Whether
evidence led before the Authorized Officer justifies the findings. (iii)
Whether the amount of liability fixed is proportionate and reasonable.
None of these aspects are addressed in the appellate order before this
Court. The order is thus incomplete, mechanical, and devoid of
reasoning. The absence of such independent analysis renders the
appellate decision unsustainable in law.
143. The Court finds it impossible to fix personal liability of each
petitioner in these writ proceedings. The questions are mainly factual.
They require close scrutiny of records, witness testimony and
documentary proof. The Court cannot, on the paper now before it, say
what exact role each petitioner played. The Court cannot say which
Page No.10 of 15
8 OCTOBER 2026
Renuka Thakur 9-WP-13055-2026.docx
specific acts or omissions are proved against whom. The Court cannot
say how much of the total loss, if any, is attributable to each person.
These issues call for detailed fact-finding. Only such a detailed process
can produce the credible evidence required to fasten individual liability
under Section 88. Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is not the
right forum for such reappraisal of primary facts. This Court's function
in writ proceedings is to test legality, fairness and procedure. It is not to
conduct a trial or reweigh evidence afresh. The material before this
Court shows gaps in the earlier findings, absence of separate discussion
of each charge, and want of proper evaluation of defences and
documentary proof. Those defects go to the heart of the inquiry under
Section 88 and Rule 72.
7) Accordingly, this Court has set aside the orders passed by
the Appellate Authority as well as the order passed by the Inquiry Officer
dated 2 February 2016 and has remanded the proceedings before the
Inquiry Officer/Authorized Officer for fresh adjudication. The operative
directions given by this Court in paragraphs 145 to 148 of the judgment
reads thus:-
145. Accordingly, order dated 29 December 2001 passed by the
Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra acting as the
Appellant Authority under Section 152 of the MCS Act, and the order
dated 2 February 2016, passed by the Authorized Officer under Section
88 of the said Act, in all Petitions, are hereby quashed and set aside.
146. The matter is remanded to the Authorized Officer for fresh
consideration and decision in accordance with law, after giving all
concerned parties due opportunity of hearing and following the
procedure prescribed under the Act and Rules.
147. The Authorized Officer shall, while conducting the fresh inquiry,
strictly follow the procedure laid down in Rule 72.
148. The fresh inquiry shall be completed within a reasonable time,
preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order.
8) The Bank approached the Hon’ble Apex Court challenging
the judgment and order dated 17 October 2025, the Special Leave
Petitions filed by the Bank are disposed of by order dated 20 April 2026
Page No.11 of 15
8 OCTOBER 2026
Renuka Thakur 9-WP-13055-2026.docx
by granting liberty to the Bank to file Review Petitions seeking review of
the judgment and order dated 17 October 2025. The Review Petitions
filed by the Bank have been dismissed by this Court by order dated 18
August 2026, paragraphs 31 to 33 of which read thus:-
31. The review petitions are accordingly dismissed. It is clarified that
the question of apportionment of individual liability, as referred to in
paragraph 68(vi) of the judgment dated 17 October 2025, shall be
decided by the Authorized Officer on the basis of evidence on record.
Such evidence shall include the relevant resolutions sanctioning the
loans or other facilities, wherever applicable, and other relevant
material showing the role, duties, authority and participation of every
person concerned.
32. The applications filed by the employees and/or their legal
representatives for release, recalling or modification of attachment of
immovable properties shall be decided by the competent authority
according to law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned
parties, within four weeks from today.
33. The period for completion of the fresh inquiry directed by the
judgment dated 17 October 2025 is extended by one year from today.
The Authorized Officer shall proceed with and complete the inquiry in
accordance with the judgment under review, the clarifications made in
the present order, Section 88 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies
Act, 1960 and Rule 72 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules,
1961.
9) It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners that since a common inquiry was conducted by the
Authorized Officer in respect of the employees and the directors, remand
made by this Court by judgment and order dated 17 October 2025 would
necessarily entail remand of inquiry even qua the directors. I am in
agreement with the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioners. A composite inquiry was conducted by the
Authorized Officer and a common apportionment order is passed qua
both employees as well as the directors of the Bank. If inquiry against the
Page No.12 of 15
8 OCTOBER 2026
Renuka Thakur 9-WP-13055-2026.docx
employees is remanded by setting aside the order dated 2 February 2016,
necessarily the adjudication qua directors also need to be made afresh. A
composite adjudication into the acts of the employees and the directors
is warranted in the present case, which is apparent from the fact that the
Authorized Officer himself conducted a composite and inquiry into the
acts of the employees and the directors. In my view therefore, for the
reasons recorded by this Court in judgment and order dated 17 October
2025, the order passed by the Authorized Officer on 2 February 2016 qua
the directors is also required to be set aside. Since Inquiry Officer's
order dated 2 February 2016 qua erected directors is set aside, the benefit
would entail even to the Petitioner of Writ Petition (stamp) No. 16997 of
2022, who claims to be an expert director. In the remanded proceedings,
it would be open for Petitioner in Writ Petition (stamp) No. 16997 of
2022 to impress upon the Inquiry Officer that he does not have personal
liability to recoup the amount of alleged losses faced by the Petitioner-
Bank.
10) So far as Writ Petition No 4892 of 2023 is concerned, the
Petitioner therein is aggrieved by attachment of her properties. In
paragraph 32 of the review order dated 18 August 2026, this Court has
already made an arrangement by providing a remedy to the
employees/their legal representatives for securing release/recalls/
modification of attachment of immovable properties. The Petitioner in
Writ Petition No. 4892 of 2023 shall also be entitled to exercise the said
remedies. Same would apply to the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 16294
of 2024 also.
Page No.13 of 15
8 OCTOBER 2026
Renuka Thakur 9-WP-13055-2026.docx
11) I accordingly proceed to pass the following order:-
(i) Order dated 2 February 2016 passed by the Authorized
Officer qua the Petitioners in the present Petitions as well
as the orders passed by the Appellate Authority are set aside.
(ii) The proceedings are remanded before the Authorized
Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law keeping
in mind the directives given by this Court in the judgment
and order dated 17 October 2025.
(iii) If immovable properties of any of the Petitioners are
attached, they shall be at liberty to file application before
the Competent Authority in accordance with the law who
shall proceed to decide the same keeping in mind the factor
that the underlying order of the Inquiry Officer dated 2
February 2016 has been set aside. Such application shall be
decided uninfluenced by any previous orders passed by the
Competent Authority.
(iv) The Authorized Officer shall also adjudicate the issue
as to whether the legal representatives of the original
delinquent/third party can be held liable under Section 88 of
the MCS Act.
Page No.14 of 15
8 OCTOBER 2026
Renuka Thakur 9-WP-13055-2026.docx
(v) Time to conduct and complete the remanded inquiry
qua directors as well as employees shall stand extended by
period of one year from today.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Renuka S Thakur
Page No.15 of 15
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 8 OCTOBER 2026
Date: 09/10/2026 19:10:23
Checking your session…