2012 PLP 1138 (CLC)

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.

Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the petitioner has called in question the inquiry report dated 6-3-2004 on the basis of which Deputy District Officer Cooperative Societies/Circle Registrar, Punjab, Lahore (respondent No.2) recommended for recovery of embezzled amount from the petitioner along with others and order dated 2-8-2010 by virtue of which, the Secretary Cooperative/respondent No.3 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against order dated 2-8-2010 passed by respondent No.2.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case, as unfolded in this petition, are that Pakistan Election Commission Employees Cooperative Societies Limited (hereinafter to be referred as Society) was established on 20-10-1982. The petitioner being one of the pioneer members of the Society was elected as General Secretary of the Managing Committee of the Society and he enjoyed the said position till the year 1993-94. After leaving the Society by the petitioner, an inquiry was conducted by Industrial Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies, Lahore/respondent No.4 and vide his report dated 6-3-2004 held the petitioner to be liable to pay Rs.90,000/-. On the basis of said inquiry, respondent No.2 vide order dated 19-7-2008 directed recovery of an amount of Rs.75,000/- from the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.3, who vide order dated 2-8-2010 dismissed the same; hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the proceedings conducted by respondent No.4 and orders passed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 are not tenable for the reason that the same were passed in violation of universally acknowledged principle of audi alteram partem as neither the petitioner was associated with the inquiry proceedings conducted by respondent No.4 nor he was given an opportunity to prove his innocence during the proceedings pending before respondents Nos.2 and 3; that the impugned inquiry report as well as the orders have been passed in a mechanical fashion inasmuch as no documentary proof is available on the record to show that the petitioner bowed Rs.90,000/- from the funds of the Society; that the petitioner has been held responsible for payment of Rs.75,000/- without adopting due procedure, thus the same is not sustainable; that according to the inquiry report, the petitioner was held liable to pay Rs.90,000/- whereas respondent No.2 has ordered for recovery of Rs.75,000/- from him in presence of such contradiction, the impugned inquiry report as well as the orders deserve to be set at naught; that the impugned inquiry report as well as the orders are totally against the record, thus, they deserve to be brushed aside and that in case the impugned inquiry report submitted by respondent No.4 and the orders passed by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 are not set aside, the petitioner is bound to suffer an irreparable loss in addition to incalculable injury.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the documents appended with this petition, I have noted that an inquiry was conducted by respondent No.4 in the affairs of the Society within the purview of section 43 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 and while submitting his report dated 3-6-2004 he held that petitioner was given Rs.90,000/- as loan to construct his house on the plot allotted to him in the Society but he failed to repay the same. On the basis of said inquiry, respondent No.3 directed recovery of Rs.75,000/- from the petitioner. The stance of the petitioner is that neither he was associated with the inquiry proceedings conducted by respondent No.4 nor he was given an opportunity to defend himself before respondent No.2. To appreciate the contention of the petitioner, I have gone through the inquiry report submitted by respondent No.4. According to the said report as per audit, the petitioner availed facility of advance of Rs.90,000/- from the funds of the Society but did not pay back the same. Further, according to the order passed by respondent No.2, the petitioner has been held liable to pay Rs.75,000/-. The inquiry report as well as the order of respondent No.2 is based on the record of the Society as well as the statements of the Ex-members of the Society. The petitioner being the member of the then managing committee was responsible to make any loss good. Further, he has not denied that he never availed the said finance rather he has taken the stance that no agreement in that respect is available on record. Suffice it to observe that the books of accounts of the Society are valid piece of evidence and their entries have rightly been relied upon by respondent No.4 as well as respondent No.2. An other important question involved in this petition is that the impugned order was passed on 2-8-2010 and the petitioner filed the instant petition on 27-4-2011, thus the same being beyond the period of six months is hit by principle of laches. It is well established by now that law favours the vigilant and not indolent. Even otherwise learned counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to point out any illegality justifying interference by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. Resultantly, this petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any force. K.M.Z./M-359/L `Petition dismissed.