Umesh S/O Ganapati Naik Vs Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11764 WP No. 102015 of 2018 C/W WP No. 102014 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.102014 OF 2018

¶8

C/W.

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.102015 OF 2018

¶10

IN WP.NO.102014/2018:

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶13

UMESH S/O. GANAPATI NAIK, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, H.NO.227, 18^TH CROSS, VEERA SANGOLLI RAYANNA NAGAR, BHARIDEVARAKOPPA, HUBBALLI-580025.

¶14

(BY SRI. ANOOP G. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

…PETITIONER

¶17

JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BELAGAVI.

¶18

THE MUNDAGOD TALUKA AGRICULTURE PRODUCE COOPERATIVE MARKETIGN SOCEITY, MUNDAGOD (UTTARA KANANDA), REP. BY CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY.

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11764 WP No. 102015 of 2018 C/W WP No. 102014 of 2018

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SARSWATI SADAN, 2^ND FLOOR, HUBBUWAD, KARWAR, UTTARA KANANDA.

¶22

THE INSPECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES/ SALE OFFICER (O.P.G) OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, CO-OP. SOCIETIES, SIRSI, (UTTARA KANNADA).

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1 AND R3; SRI. I.S. UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R4-NOTICE SERVED)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER BY QUASHING ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 21.07.2016 BEARING NO. PÀæ:rDgïJ£ï/¥À«/65/¹Dgï-2/2015-16 AS PER ANNEXURE-Q AND ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 20.11.2017 BEARING NO. PÀæ:eÉDgïJ¯ï/©/rJ¦/07/2016-17 AS PER ANNEXURE-T IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. B. ANY OTHER RELIEFS WHICH THE HON’BLE COURT DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶26

IN WP.NO.102015/2018:

¶27

BETWEEN

¶28

UMESH S/O. GANAPATI NAIK, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, H.NO.227, 18^TH CROSS, VEERA SANGOLLI RAYANNA NAGAR, BHARIDEVARAKOPPA, HUBBALLI-580025.

¶29

…PETITIONER

¶30

(BY SRI. ANOOP G. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11764 WP No. 102015 of 2018 C/W WP No. 102014 of 2018

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

AND

¶35

JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BELAGAVI.

¶36

PRESIDENT/ SECRETARY THE MUNDAGOD TALUKA AGRICULTURE, PRODUCE COOPERATIVE MARKETING SOCEITY, MUNDAGOD, (UTTARA KANANDA).

¶37

DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SARSWATI SADAN, 2^ND FLOOR, HUBBUWAD, KARWAR, UTTARA KANANDA.

¶38

THE INSPECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES/ SALE OFFICER (O.P.G) OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, CO-OP. SOCIETIES, SIRSI, (UTTARA KANNADA).

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1, R3 AND R4; SRI. I.S. UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶41

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A. TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER BY QUASHING ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 15.06.2016 BEARING NO. PÀæ:rDgïJ£ï/¥À«/65/¹Dgï-2/2015-16

¶42

AS PER ANNEXURE-J AND ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 20.11.2017 BEARING NO. PÀæ:eÉDgïJ¯ï/©/rJ¦/08/2016-17 AS PER ANNEXURE-S IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. B. ANY OTHER RELIEFS WHICH THE HON’BLE COURT DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶43

THESE WRIT PETITIONS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 28.08.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

4 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11764 WP No. 102015 of 2018 C/W WP No. 102014 of 2018

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

CAV ORDER

¶48

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

¶49

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶50

following reliefs:

¶51

IN WP.NO.102014/2018:

¶52

A. To issue writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ or order by quashing order passed by Respondent No.3 dated 21.07.2016 bearing No. PÀæ:rDgïJ£ï/¥À«/65/¹Dgï-2/2015-

¶53

16 as per Annexure-Q and order passed by Respondent No.1 dated 20.11.2017 bearing No. PÀæ:eÉDgïJ¯ï/©/rJ¦/07/2016-17 as per Annexure-T in the interest of justice and equity.

¶54

b. Any other reliefs which the Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶55

IN WP.NO.102015/2018:

¶56

a . To issue writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ or order by quashing order passed by Respondent No.3 dated 15.06.2016 bearing no. PÀæ:rDgïJ£ï/¥À«/65/¹Dgï-2/2015-16 as per Annexure-J and order passed by Respondent No.1 dated 20.11.2017 bearing No. PÀæ:eÉDgïJ¯ï/ ©/rJ¦/08/ 201617 as per Annexure-S in the interest of justice and equity.

¶57

b. Any other reliefs which the Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity .

¶58

5 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11764 WP No. 102015 of 2018 C/W WP No. 102014 of 2018

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

2. The brief facts of the case in

¶62

W.P.No.102015/2018 are:

¶63

2.1. Respondent No.2 is a Cooperative Society, registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the 'KCS Act' for short), having its office at Mundagod and carrying on the business of selling fertilizers, seeds, pesticides, as also owns a rice mill, TV Showroom etc.

¶64

2.2. The petitioner joined the services of the Cooperative society as a Second Division Clerk in the year 2004 and was promoted as a First Division Clerk in the year 2009 and in the year 2011, was promoted as Supervisor, in furtherance of which, the work order had been issued to the petitioner on 30.08.2011.

¶65

2.3. The Cooperative Society used to sell materials on

¶66

a credit basis by making endorsements on

¶67

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11764 WP No. 102015 of 2018 C/W WP No. 102014 of 2018

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

delivery challans. The accounts were closed usually in the month of June–July for every year instead of 31^st March because of its credit business. This was done in order to avoid the same being known to the members of the Society.

¶70

2.4. This aspect was observed by the KDCC Bank during the course of inspection in the year 2011– 12, towards which a reply had been issued by the Co-operative Society.

¶71

2.5. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies had appointed Shri B. D. D'Souza, Senior Inspector, as Enquiry Officer, to enquire into the difference in stock and the illegal credit activities of the Co-operative Society. A letter was issued by him on 26.11.2015, seeking an explanation from the Society. Separate notices had also been issued to various persons relating to the functioning of the Society, including one notice to

¶72

7 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11764 WP No. 102015 of 2018 C/W WP No. 102014 of 2018

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by the final order which has been passed.

¶76

2.6. Towards the said show cause notice, the Manager of the Cooperative Society had submitted a reply on 07.05.2016.

¶77

2.7. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (DRCS), on 15.06.2016, directed the Cooperative Society to take action on the inspection report submitted. On 18.06.2016, the Cooperative Society passed a resolution to take action as per the direction of DRCS, in pursuance

¶78

of which a memo came to be issued to the petitioner on 20.06.2016, as regards which the petitioner submitted a reply on 30.06.2016 denying all the charges levelled against him.

¶79

2.8. An office memo came to be issued on 09.07.2016 and another on 13.07.2016, calling

¶80

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11764 WP No. 102015 of 2018 C/W WP No. 102014 of 2018

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

upon the petitioner to make payment of the differential in the stocks of the fertiliser.

¶83

2.9. Challenging the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (JRCS) under Section 106(1)(h) of the KCS Act. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 20.11.2017.

¶84

2.10. It is challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶85

3. The facts of the case in W.P.No.102014/2018

¶86

are:

¶87

3.1. The facts in this matter are identical relating to the same issue.

¶88

3.2. In this matter, vide order dated 21.07.2016, respondent No.3 DRCS had directed initiation of criminal proceedings which came to be challenged by the petitioner in Appeal No.7/2016–17 before the JRCS by filing an

¶89

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11764 WP No. 102015 of 2018 C/W WP No. 102014 of 2018

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

appeal under Section 106(1)(h) of the KCS Act, which came to be dismissed by the JRCS by order dated 20.11.2017.

¶92

3.3. It is challenging the same the petitioner is before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

¶93

Shri Anoop G. Deshpande, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the matters submitted that;

¶94

4.1. Insofar as W.P.No.102014/2018 is concerned, what is being challenged is the direction to initiate criminal proceedings, and W.P.No.102015/2018 has been filed challenging

¶95

the directions issued to recover the differential amount from the petitioner and certain other officers.

¶96

4.2. His submission, however, is that the facts

¶97

leading up to both the said orders being one and the same, the petitioner not being guilty of any

¶98

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11764 WP No. 102015 of 2018 C/W WP No. 102014 of 2018

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

violation and/or misconduct, neither of these two

¶101

orders could be passed.

¶102

4.3. Secondly, that the petitioner took charge of the fertiliser business only on 30.04.2016, an inventory of the items available with the society was made on that day and it was categorically indicated that there is a differential of ₹73,30,694/in stock, which has been acknowledged by all concerned.

¶103

4.4. The said differential being in existence as on that date is what has been complained of against the petitioner. No action could have been taken in respect to the petitioner as regards the shortage and/or shortfall which was already in existence at the time when the petitioner took charge.

¶104

4.5. When the initial charge memo had been issued, the name of the petitioner was not found in the said charge memo. All the allegations which had

¶105

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11764 WP No. 102015 of 2018 C/W WP No. 102014 of 2018

¶106

HC-KAR

¶107

been made were against one Sri.Subash N. Vaddar and there is no particular allegation which has been made against the petitioner. The name of the petitioner was included much subsequently. All the allegations being pointed out against Sri.Subash N. Vaddar, the petitioner has been unnecessarily implicated in the matter.

¶108

4.6. The allegations have been made against the said Sri.Subash N. Vaddar, he being the person who is responsible, action ought to be taken only against Sri.Subash N. Vaddar and not against the petitioner.

¶109

4.7. He categorically asserts that there is no misappropriation of any monies let alone a sum of Rs.73,84,371/- by the petitioner.

¶110

4.8. The manner of calculation which has been made by the respondents is not proper. Blame has been apportioned to the petitioner at

¶111

12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11764 WP No. 102015 of 2018 C/W WP No. 102014 of 2018

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

₹24,61,457/-, calling upon the petitioner to

¶114

deposit the said amount. There is no basis for such apportionment and on that ground also he submits that the impugned orders are required to be set aside.

¶115

Sri.Ramesh Chigari, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4, would submit that;

¶116

5.1. There is misappropriation which has occurred. The inventory has been done on 30.04.2016. The petitioner had been working with the Society from the year 2004 as Second Division Clerk, from the year 2009 as First Division Clerk, and being appointed as a Supervisor on 01.06.2011, a work order had been issued on 30.08.2011. The inventory was done in the year 2016, by which time the petitioner was functioning as a Supervisor for the last 5 years.

¶117

13 -

¶118

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11764 WP No. 102015 of 2018 C/W WP No. 102014 of 2018

¶119

HC-KAR

¶120

5.2. The initial charge memo which had been issued

¶121

named Sri.Subash N. Vaddar and certain others. But during the enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was also involved in misappropriation and action is proposed to be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner himself, having participated during the process of carrying out the inventory, has signed the inventory accepting that there is a shortfall of Rs.73,84,371/-.

¶122

5.3. It is in that background that the petitioner being

¶123

the Supervisor responsible for maintenance of the stocks, a claim has been made against the petitioner to return the amounts and apportionment made in that regard is proper and correct.

¶124

5.4. Therefore the above petition is required to be

¶125

dismissed.

¶126

14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11764 WP No. 102015 of 2018 C/W WP No. 102014 of 2018

¶127

HC-KAR

¶128

Sri. I. S. Uppin, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 Cooperative Society would support the submission of the learned AGA and submits that the Society had suffered a loss of a sum of Rs.73,84,371/- on account of the officers of the Society, and in furtherance thereof that action was proposed to be taken against the petitioner and certain others relating to such misappropriation. On the above grounds he submits that the writ petitions are required to be dismissed.

¶129

Heard Sri.Anoop Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Ramesh Chigari, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 and Sri. I.S. Uppin, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Co-operative Society. Perused the records.

¶130

The facts in the present matters are not in dispute. What is relevant are the dates. It is not in dispute that the petitioner joined the service of respondent

¶131

15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11764 WP No. 102015 of 2018 C/W WP No. 102014 of 2018

¶132

HC-KAR

¶133

No.2 Society on 01.06.2004 as Second Division Clerk, was promoted as First Division Clerk on 01.06.2009 and subsequently as Supervisor 01.06.2011, pursuant to the work order issued to the petitioner on 30.08.2011, from which date the petitioner has been working as Supervisor in the Cooperative Society. One of the roles of the Supervisor is to maintain the stocks of the Cooperative Society and record transactions in relation thereto in a proper manner.

¶134

Though learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accounts of the Society were being closed in the month of June–July every year instead of 31^st March, it is a matter of record that the petitioner had not brought this to the notice of any of the Officers or the Directors of the Co-operative Society or any of the Officers of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies.

¶135

The manner in which such a statement has been made by the petitioner is that, since the Cooperative Society

¶136

16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11764 WP No. 102015 of 2018 C/W WP No. 102014 of 2018

¶137

HC-KAR

¶138

was doing so, though it was wrong, the petitioner continued to keep quiet and not done anything about it and for that reason it is contended that the Cooperative Society closing the accounts in the month of June-July in order to account for the credit issued in respect of various fertilizer products, seeds and pesticides being sold by the Cooperative Society. The petitioner cannot be put to blame.

¶139

The second contention on which blame is sought to be denied is on account of the inventory which was done in the year 2016 in terms of which it is claimed that there was a shortfall of Rs.73,84,371/- in stocks as on the date on which the petitioner took charge.

¶140

Lastly, it is contended that, in the initial charge memo which had been issued, all allegations were made against Sri. Subash N. Vaddar and certain others and not against the petitioner.

¶141

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11764 WP No. 102015 of 2018 C/W WP No. 102014 of 2018

¶142

17 -

¶143

HC-KAR

¶144

Insofar as the first contention is concerned, the petitioner being a responsible officer of the Cooperative Society, having been functioning as a Second Division Clerk from the year 2004, First Division Clerk from the year 2009 and Supervisor from

¶145

the year 2011, ought to have known that the methodology of closing of account in June-July is not in accordance with law. The financial year coming to end on 31^st March, the accounts have to be closed by then. If there was any issue in relation thereto, it was the duty of the petitioner to have brought it to the notice of the concerned officers. The same not having been done, would indicate that the petitioner is also part of the cover-up resorted to by the other officers.

¶146

As regards the inventory which has been done in the year 2016, the said inventory was in pursuance of the Enquiry Officer being appointed on 26.11.2015. Though it is contended that there is a resolution of the Society directing the petitioner to take charge of the

¶147

18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11764 WP No. 102015 of 2018 C/W WP No. 102014 of 2018

¶148

HC-KAR

¶149

fertilizer Section on 15.02.2016, the fact remains that until 15.02.2016, the petitioner was also working as a Supervisor in the Fertilizer Section and it is not that the petitioner did not have anything to do with the Fertilizer Section until then. The stock list which was prepared on 30.04.2016, though was after the petitioner having taken over the charge of the Fertilizer Section, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner was involved in the Fertilizer Section even prior thereto and it is not that the petitioner came to be involved with the Fertilizer Section only on 15.02.2016 when the Cooperative Society passed a resolution to that effect.

¶150

The petitioner therefore, in my considered opinion, cannot take undue advantage of the preparation of the stock list subsequently, even though there was a requirement for such a stock list to have been maintained on a continuous basis even when the petitioner was a Supervisor.

¶151

19 -

¶152

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11764 WP No. 102015 of 2018 C/W WP No. 102014 of 2018

¶153

HC-KAR

¶154

The last submission made that the charge memo

¶155

issued was only as regards Sri.Subhash N. Vaddar, and certain others and not against the petitioner, will also not enure to the benefit the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner was the supervisor in the said fertilizer division and initially when the charge memo was issued, the Cooperative Society was under the impression that the persons named therein were involved in the said misappropriation, but subsequently upon enquiry being completed, it being found that there is in fact a shortfall in the stock of fertilizers, as per the inventory done on 30.04.2016. The petitioner being the supervisor not having brought the same to the notice of the concerned and being responsible for maintaining the stock is also involved in the said misappropriation, action was proposed to be taken.

¶156

Thus, looked at from any angle, none of the contentions of the petitioner can be sustained. The

¶157

20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11764 WP No. 102015 of 2018 C/W WP No. 102014 of 2018

¶158

HC-KAR

¶159

petitioner, being involved in the Fertilizer Section and being a responsible officer, cannot seek to evade liability on such baseless grounds. The enquiry report indicating contra, the proposals which have been made by the respondent Society cannot be found fault with, surcharge proceedings which have been initiated are proper and correct.

¶160

In the above circumstances, no grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed.

¶161

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶162

gab Ct:pa List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Umesh S/O Ganapati Naik v. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh S/O Ganapati Naik v. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh S/O Vitthal Naik Vs the Chief Personnel Manager

A M Yerriswamys/O. Siddayya Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B Hanumanthappa S/O Late Irappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Umesh S/O Ganapati Naik Vs Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Shri. Mallappa S/O Fakkirappa Hosalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Ramesh S/O Somappa Kallimani Vs the State of Karnataka