1997 INSC 0518
                                                    K. K. Sharma

                                                           Vs

                                            Kulwant Singh And Others

                                         Civil Appeal No. 3431 Of 1997

                                       (K. Ramaswamy, D. P. Wadhwa JJ)

                                                      25.04.1997

                                                        ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

4. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court, made on 18-4-1995 in Civil Writ Petition No. 9648 of 1994.

5. The first respondent had purchased furniture and is said to have used the bank car for unofficial
purposes. On that ground, he was surcharged. The inspection report dated 4-5-1993 would indicate
that the first respondent as President of the Bank had not used the car while performing duties and
responsibilities according to the statutory provisions and the expenditure incurred in that behalf and
the value of the furniture purchase were liable to be recovered from them personally. The enquiry
conducted in that 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 quashed the
surcharge order and the Annexure P-S imposing surcharge with cost of Rs 5000 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, Cooperative Societies to give an opportunity of
hearing to the first respondent and then to pass a reasoned order whether he had caused any loss to
the Bank of which he is the Chairman. In the order dated 9-4-1997, 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 performed the
journey and used the car in the discharge of his duties as a Chairman of the Board of Directors of
the Bank. He also purchased the furniture and the furniture is being used by the Bank and thereby he
has not caused any pecuniary loss to the Bank.

6. 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.

7. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.