http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: K.K. SHARMA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KULWANT SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       25/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the  Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, made on April 18, 1995 in Civil Writ Petition No.9648/1994.      The first  respondent had  purchased furniture and said to be  used the  bank car  for unofficiaal purposes. On that ground, he  was surcharged.  The inspection report dated May 4,  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 then personally. The enquiry conducted in the 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  petiton  and  quashed  the  surcharge  order  and  the Annexure P.5  imposing surcharge  with cost of Rs.5,000/- 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  Ist respondent and  then to pass a reasoned order whether he had caused any  loss to Bank of which he is the Chairman. In the order dated  April 9,  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 the Directors of  the Bank.  He also purchased the furniture and the furniture  is being  used by the Bank and thereby he has

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

not caused any pecuniary loss to the Bank.      In view  of the above finding, the direction issued for recovery of  the costs  personally from the first respondent is not  warranted and the High Court has rightly quashed the surcharge order.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.