K.K. SHARMAversusKULWANT SINGH AND ORS.

A                                K.K. SHARMA
                                        v.
                         KULWANT SINGH AND ORS.

                                 APRIL 25, 1997

B                [K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.)

         Bank-Pecuniary loss to-<:hainnan of Board of Directo~Alleged use
  of Bank car for unofficial purposes-Also purchase of furniture not for bank
  us~nquiry conducted-Decision to recover the expenses from him-Chal-
C lenged before High Court-Order quashed by the High Court-On appeal,
  Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies directed to pass a reasoned order
  after giving an opportunity of hearing-Finding by the Joint Registrar to the
  effect that Bank car was used in the discharge of duties as Chaim1a~ur­
  niture purchased used by the Bank-No pecuniary loss to the Banlc-Held :
D In view of the above finding, the direction issued for recovery of the costs
  personally from the appellant not wa1ranted and High Cowt rightly quashed
  the order.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3431 of
    1997.
E        From the Judgment and Order dated 18.4.95 of the Punjab and
    Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 9648 of 1994.

            Neeraj Kumar Jain and Ms. Abba R. Sharma for the Appellant.

F           R.S. Sodhi for the Respondents.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

            Delay condoned.

G           Leave granted.

            We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

           This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division
     Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, made on April 18, 1995 in
H    Civil Writ Petition No. 9648/1994.
                                         1048
                    K.K.SHARMAv. KULWANTSINGH                             1049

         The first respondent had purchased furniture and said to be used the     A
  bank car for unofficial purposes. On that ground, he was surcharged. The
  inspection report dated may 4, 1993 would indicate that the first respon-
  dent as President of the Bank had not used the car while performing duties
  and responsibilities according to the statutory provisions and the expendi-
  ture incurred in that behalf and the value of the furniture purchase were
  liable to be recovered from them personally. The enquiry conducted in the
                                                                                  B
  behalf revealed that the first respondent had made unauthorised use of the
· bank car and had made purchase of the furniture etc. It was opined that
  he had needlessly incurred the expenditure and, therefore, the same was
  liable to be recovered from him as surcharge. When he challenged this
  order in the High Court, the High Court allowed the writ petition and           c
  quashed the surcharge order and the Annexure P. 5 imposing surcharge
  with cost of Rs. 5,000 to be borne by the State with the liberty to proceed
  against the appellant for recovery thereof. When the matter had come up
  before us, we directed the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies to give
  an opportunity of hearing to the Ist respondent and then to pass a reasoned
                                                                                  D
  order-whether he had caused any loss to the Bank of which he is the
  Chairman. In the Order dated April 9, 1997, the Registrar, after elaborate
  consideration held that the respondent had incurred expenditure in the
  sum of Rs. 1,15,888 towards the use of the vehicle to attend various official
  functions. He also incurred expenditure in the sum of Rs. 1,01,650.48
  towards the expenditure for the purchase of the furniture. He actually          E
  performed the journey and used the car in the discharge of his duties as a
  Chairman of the Board of the Directors of the Bank. He al~o purchased
  the furniture and the furniture is being used by the Bank and thereby he
  has not caused any pecuniary loss to the Bank.
                                                                                  F
       In view of the above finding, the direction issued for recovery of the
 costs personally from the appellant is not warranted and the High Court
 has rightly quashed the surcharge order.

                                                                                  G
        The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.


 G.N.                                                        Appeal ailowed.