Dismissed¶73

Sri S Vishwanath v. the Additional Registrar

Karnataka HC25 Jul 2025WP/50655/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Surcharge proceedings under Section 69 (statute not named in judgment); Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies; A(C.M) Surcharge Case No. 06/07-08; Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Appeal No. 503/2011; certiorari under Articles 226 & 227; daily wager; misappropriation Rs.1,43,173; Ex.P.3 admission letter; payment Rs.54,703; surcharge demand Rs.88,470 with 12% interest; Deputy Manager (Marketing) deposition authorised by Managing Director R.C. Ramaiah; Karnataka Co-operative Oil & Seeds Growers Federation; WP 50655/2018 (CS-RES).

What did the court decide?

The petitioner had admitted before the Appellate Tribunal that he was entrusted with collection of cans, placing orders, and collecting cheques and cash for deposit with respondent No.2; once that admission was made, he could not deny the same in the present writ petition.

Sri S Vishwanath Vs the Additional Registrar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶73

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, engaged on daily wages, had any duty or responsibility to collect monies and was liable for the alleged misappropriation of Rs.1,43,173/-, notwithstanding his contention that collection was the supervisor's responsibility. +2 more

¶46

Court's answer

¶60

Ratio / Principle

Ex.P.3, a letter written by the petitioner himself, indicated his admission of having misappropriated Rs.1,43,173/-, his apology and undertaking to clear the amounts, in furtherance of which he paid Rs.54,703/-; it cannot now be countenanced that he had no obligation or responsibility.

¶63

Key takeaways

The payment of Rs.54,703/- equals about 45 months' complete salary (nearly four years) at Rs.1,200/- per month; even assuming Ex.P.3 was forcefully obtained, the petitioner would not have paid more than the money he earned during his period of service.ratio¶69
No grounds have been made out on merits in support of the petitioner's challenge.ratio¶69
As a Federation of Oil Seed Growers many officers handle different functions through written records; nothing prevents the Deputy Manager (Marketing) from deposing on behalf of the Federation, particularly as he categorically stated the Managing Director had duly authorized him, and the petitioner cannot take undue advantage of this.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Suraj Govindaraj J.), by CAV order dated 25.07.2025, dismisses a writ petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 seeking certiorari against a surcharge order dated 06.06.2011 passed by the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies in A(C.M) Surcharge Case No. 06/07-08 (directing payment of Rs.88,470/- with 12% interest following surcharge proceedings under Section 69) and its confirmation by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 503/2011. The petitioner, a daily-wage employee (Rs.1,200/- p.m.) of the Karnataka Co-operative Oil & Seeds Growers Federation, had admitted collecting cheques and cash, wrote Ex.P.3 admitting misappropriation of Rs.1,43,173/- with an apology and undertaking, and paid Rs.54,703/- (about 45 months' wages). The court held these admissions precluded denial of liability and found no merit in the objection that a Deputy Manager (Marketing) could not depose for the Federation when the Managing Director had authorized him.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:28695 WP No. 50655 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 50655 OF 2018 (CS-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

SRI S VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O H.D.SHIVALINGEGOWDA, R/AT. HOSAKOTE VILLAGE, SAGARKATE POST, YELWALA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK & DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. B.S. NAGARAJ., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND

¶14

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (C & M) NO.1, ALI-ASKER ROAD, BANGALORE-560052.

¶16

M/S KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE OIL & SEEDS GROWERS FEDERATION LTD., INFANTRY ROAD CROSS, BANGALORE-560001. REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. R.C. RAMAIAH

¶17

SRI N SHIVA KUMAR ACCOUNTS CLERK, KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE OIL & SEEDS GROWERS FEDERATION LTD., INFANTRY ROAD CROSS, BANGALORE-560001.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:28695 WP No. 50655 of 2018

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

…. RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. M. SAMPATH KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. HARISH A.S., AGA FOR R1; V/O DATED 15.03.2024 SERVICE TO NOTICE TO R2 H/S)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED, 06.06.2011 PASSED BY R1, IN SURCHARGE NO. A(C.M) SURCHARGE CASE NO. 06/07-08. THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS SUBMITTED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO. 503/2011, DATED: 23.08.2018, WHERE IN CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R1. THE COPY OF THE SAID ORDER, DATED: 23.08.2018 IS SUBMITTED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-B, AND ETC.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 17.07.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶26

CAV ORDER

¶27

The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶28

i. Issue a writ in nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the order dated, 06.06.2011 passed by R1, in Surcharge No. A(C.M) Surcharge Case No. 06/07-08. The true copy of the said order is submitted herewith at Annexure-A and the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 503/2011, dated: 23.08.2018, where

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:28695 WP No. 50655 of 2018

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

in confirmed the order passed by the R1. The copy of the said order, dated: 23.08.2018 is submitted herewith at Annexure-B, and

¶32

ii. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶33

The petitioner was appointed by respondent No.2Federation on daily wages for an amount of Rs.1,200/- per month in the year 1996, alleging that the petitioner had been engaged to collect the sale proceeds from various customers and remit the same to respondent No.2-Federation and that there was misappropriation of the sum of Rs.1,43,173/-. On the basis of the audit report, surcharge proceedings were initiated under Section 69 against the petitioner. The petitioner, alleging that it is on account of pressure brought on him, though not liable to make payment

¶34

of any money, is stated to have paid a sum of Rs.54,703/-. The petitioner, however, filed a detailed objections denying the charges and alleging that the proceedings were barred by limitation.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:28695 WP No. 50655 of 2018

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

On merits, it is contended that there is no obligation

¶39

or responsibility cast upon the petitioner to collect the sale proceeds. The petitioner, being appointed as a daily wager, it was the responsibility of the concerned officer to collect the money. The said contention having been rejected by respondent No.1the Additional Registrar, the Petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.88,470/- along with interest of 12%. This was challenged by the petitioner before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.503 of 2011, the appeal came to be dismissed on 23.08.2008. It is challenging the same, that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for aforesaid reliefs.

¶40

None has been appearing for Respondent No.2. This Court by its order dated 14.03.2025 has categorically observed that if none were to appear for Respondent No.2, the matter would be considered on the basis of submission made by a counsel for the petitioner.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:28695 WP No. 50655 of 2018

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Sri.B.S.Nagaraj., learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶45

once again reiterates that

¶46

5.1. (i) There is no duty or responsibility cast on the petitioner to collect any monies, the petitioner being a daily wager; (ii) It was the supervisor who was responsible for the said collection, the petitioner has not collected any monies.

¶47

5.2. He submits that the proceedings were filed by the Managing Director Sri.R.C.Ramaiah, however, evidence was led by Sri.S.M.Ravishankar., the Deputy Manager (Marketing) and as such he submits that the proceedings have been filed by Managing Director, the Deputy Manager (Marketing)could not have led evidence, the said evidence ought to have been mischieved.

¶48

5.3. By referring to the cross-examination, he submits that the said Deputy Manager (Marketing) did not have any personal

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:28695 WP No. 50655 of 2018

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

knowledge as regards the transaction. Hence, any statement made by him could not have been accepted.

¶52

5.4. Again, by referring to cross-examination, he submits that it is not only the petitioner against whom proceedings have been initiated, but it has been initiated against several persons viz., Sri.Vijay Kumar, Sri.Arun Kumar, Sri.Vishwanath, Sri.Mohan Kumar. There is nothing in the audit report fixing the blame on each one of them. The allegations against all of them being joint and several, no particular amount could be claimed against the petitioner.

¶53

5.5. He submits that once Sri.Mohan Kumar was entrusted with the maintenance of accounts, if at all, there is any misappropriation it is by Sri.Mohan Kumar. The permanent employee who is sought to be saved by imputing the blame on a daily wager like the petitioner.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:28695 WP No. 50655 of 2018

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Heard Sri.B.S.Nagaraj., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Harish.A.S., learned AGA for respondent No.1 and Sri.Sampath Kumar., learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused papers.

¶58

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working with respondent No.2, albeit it is contended that he was working on a daily wage basis and not a permanent basis.

¶59

A perusal of the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal would indicate that the appellant has admitted that he was entrusted with their collection of cans, to place orders, to collect cheques and cash which he would deposit with respondent No.2.

¶60

This aspect has not been denied by the petitioner in the present writ petition, except to contend that he was a daily wager. Once admission having been made that he was collecting cheques and cash the question of now denying the same in the present writ petition would not arise.

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:28695 WP No. 50655 of 2018

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

Ex.P.3, which had been produced before the Authorities, would clearly indicate that the Appellate Tribunal has held that Ex.P.3, being a letter written by the appellant himself, indicated the petitioner had admitted having misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,43,173/-. He had further apologised for the same and undertaken to clear the amounts as early as possible. The petitioner having stated in Ex.P.3 as above, and in furtherance of which the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.54,703/-. It cannot now be countenanced that the petitioner had no obligation and/or was not responsible.

¶64

Admittedly, the petitioner was on daily wages working for a sum of Rs.1,200/- per month. The petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.54,703/after having admitted his liability. The same amounts to 45 months of complete salary i.e., for nearly 4 years. The petitioner was employed in the year

¶65

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:28695 WP No. 50655 of 2018

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

1996, the audit was carried out in the year 1999 when the misappropriation was pointed out.

¶69

If at all, the petitioner was not guilty of misappropriation, he would not have written Ex.P.3. Even if it is assumed that the said letter was forcefully obtained, the petitioner would not have made payment of sum of Rs.54,703/- which is more than the money that he earned during the period of service. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that there are no grounds which have been made out on merits.

¶70

As regards the technical issues of the surcharge proceedings having been filed by the Managing Director Sri.R.C.Ramaiah, evidence having been led by Sri.S.N.Ravi Shankar the Deputy Manager (Marketing), who had no knowledge of the transactions. Respondent No.2 being a Federation of Oil Seed Growers many of the officers handle different kinds of functions and all these are through written records.

¶71

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:28695 WP No. 50655 of 2018

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

There is nothing which prevents Sri.S.N.Ravishankar, the Deputy Manager (Marketing), from deposing on behalf of the Federation. More so, when he has categorically stated that the Managing Director of the Federation has duly authorized him. The petitioner in my considered opinion cannot take undue advantage of this. In the above circumstances, no grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed .

¶74

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶75

¶76

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Sri S Vishwanath v. the Additional Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S Vishwanath v. the Additional Registrar

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

V S Ningegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Shashisdhar Vs the State of Karnataka

V.S. Ningegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K.S. Ningappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Dilipraj Pukkella Vs Union of India

T D Mallesh Vs State of Karnataka