Disposed

A.Abdulla Haji v. Joint Registrar of Co-Operative So,Kannu

Kerala HC8 Dec 2016WP(C)/5267/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court set aside an order imposing surcharge on a bank for allegedly forged voucher payment. Ruling that enquiry must identify who actually effected payment and was in-charge, as misappropriation requires collective recovery once perpetrators are found.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Joint Registrar to consider matter after hearing all parties within two months.

A.Abdulla Haji Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative So,Kannu — Corruption | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 5267 of 2010 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

A.ABDULLA HAJI, MANAGING COMMITTEE MEMBER OF THALIPARAMBA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, RESIDING AT MIMUNATH HOUSE, KARIMBAM P.O., THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

¶9

SRI.P.BABU SRI.K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN SMT.V.SHARMILA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), KANNUR P.O, KANNUR.

¶12

2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.V.ANANDAN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-12-2016, ALONG WITH WPC.NO. 8889 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

WP(C).NO.5267/2010

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

P1 COPY OF THE DECISION NO.16 DATED 19/11/2002

¶20

P2 TO P9 COPY OF THE STAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SMT.SHEEBA RAJEEVAN DATED 2/12/2002, 20/12/2002, 12/3/03, 27/7/2003, 25/9/2003, 10/5/2003, 15/10/2003, 30/12/2003 A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 18/3/2004 OF THE MANAGING COMMITTEE

¶21

P10 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE SHEEBA REJEEVAN

¶22

P11 COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 18/3/2004 OF THE NEW MANAGING COMMITTEE

¶23

P12 COPY OF THE VOUCHER ISSUED BY THE SMT. SHEEBA RAJEEVAN.

¶24

P13 COPY OF THE ENTRY IN THE DAY BOOK

¶25

P14 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/12/08 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶26

P15 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.26/85 DATED 6/6/85.

¶27

P16 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.3313/2009 DATED 4/2/2009

¶28

P17 COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶29

P18 COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶30

P19 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/12/2009

¶31

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶36

=========================

¶37

W.P.(C).Nos. 5267, 8889, 9941 & 13038 of 2010

¶38

¶39

Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2016

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

In all these writ petitions, the common issue as to the legality of

¶42

surcharge proceedings has to be considered. W.P.(C).No.5267 of 2010 is

¶43

filed by a former managing committee member of Thaliparamba Service

¶44

Co-operative Bank. W.P.(C).No.9941 of 2010 is filed by the former President of the above committee. W.P.(C).No.13038 of 2010 is filed by one

¶45

of the members of the managing committee of the above bank. W.P.(C).

¶46

No.8889 of 2010 is filed by the former Secretary of the above bank. The

¶47

brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶48

The managing committee decided to construct an office-cumshopping complex. This decision was taken during the tenure of the managing committee of the bank for the period from 1998-2003. It

¶49

appears that a sub-committee was constituted to supervise the

¶50

constructions. The issue is related to the payment effected to one Sheeba

¶51

W.P.(C).Nos. 5267, 8889, 9941 & 13038 of 2010

¶52

-:2:-

¶53

Rajeevan, who was the supervisor. The bank had effected the payment of

¶54

Rs.3,30,000/-, as per the decision taken on 18.3.2004, on 29.3.2004. As seen

¶55

from the impugned order, Sheeba Rajeevan reported that she never

¶56

received the above amount. It appears that she even disputed the

¶57

signature in the receipts. Therefore, the facts disclose that it is a clear misappropriation of the fund of the bank. However, the proceedings of the

¶58

Joint Registrar would disclose that though the bank suffered loss owing to

¶59

the mismanagement of the funds of the bank, to take initiative to conduct

¶60

an enquiry under Section 68(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. There are two important factors which emerge in this case. Firstly,

¶61

the payment was effected after the tenure of the earlier committee. Secondly, the period of the sub-committee also expired prior to the date of

¶62

effecting payment. Over and above, the Secretary of the bank would

¶63

submit that on that particular day, 29.3.2004, he was on leave and the Assistant Secretary was in-charge.

¶64

W.P.(C).Nos. 5267, 8889, 9941 & 13038 of 2010

¶65

-:3:-

¶66

Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,

¶67

the only question that ought to have been considered by the Joint

¶68

Registrar is who effected payment and who was the recipient. No doubt, if

¶69

any of the members of the managing committee had a role in that,

¶70

certainly, the loss suffered by the bank could be recovered as a collective

¶71

loss to the bank. Primarily, the focus of such an enquiry has to be directed

¶72

against the manner in which the misappropriation has been committed,

¶73

after verifying who was in-charge on that day for effecting payment in the

¶74

bank. The impugned order though states that the payment of amount is

¶75

based on forged voucher in the name of Sheeba Rajeevan, it does not

¶76

speak about the name of the person who paid the amount. Therefore, this

¶77

court is of the view that the impugned order has to be set aside. As misappropriation has been committed, the persons who are party to such misappropriation will have to be proceeded under law. Accordingly, the

¶78

impugned order is set aside. The Joint Registrar shall consider the matter

¶79

W.P.(C).Nos. 5267, 8889, 9941 & 13038 of 2010

¶80

-:4:-

¶81

after hearing all parties within a period of two months from the date of

¶82

receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petitions are disposed of as

¶83

above. No costs.

¶84

Sd/-

¶85

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶86

A.Abdulla Haji v. Joint Registrar of Co-Operative So,Kannu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Abdulla Haji v. Joint Registrar of Co-Operative So,Kannu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ibrahim Vs Mara Pandiyan

Nissarudin Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Rajamalar Vs State of Kerala

Jijina M.P Vs State of Kerala

Supply Co. Workers Federation Vs Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation

Manheri Lakshmi Amma Vs Registrar