' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Through this petition under section 11 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution of Act I 1993) the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31-7- 2006 passed by the Judicial Officer whereby an award amounting to Rs,7,89,83,386 has been announced against the petitioners, which is liable to be set aside.
2. Concisely the facts narrated in this petition are that respondent No,1 filed suit under section 7 of Undesirable Cooperative Societies Act, 1993 for determination of outstanding liability amounting to Rs,7,16,49,965 against the petitioners and other on the basis of e) parte, partial and baseless inquiry conducted by one Akbar Bhatti Circular Registrar. Both the petitioners appearance before respondent No,2 and contested the suit by filing their written statement. The learned Judicial Officer respondent No,' conducted the proceeding of the above said case and passed the Award on 31-7- 200( against the petitioners and other jointly amounting to Rs,7,89,83,386.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the suit was filed by the respondent on the basis of inquiry report conducted under section 43 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925; that liability was calculated at about Rs,4,00,00,000 and Ghanzafar Chairman was liable for payment of Rs,2,00,00,000 and remaining amount was to be recovered at the rate of Rs,1,16,00,000 from each of the Director; that in Paras. Nos.12, 13 and 14 of the impugned order it has been admitted that record was tampered with, but inspite of that order for recovery of amount has been passed against the petitioners; that remaining record according to the filing of the Judicial Officer was not available; that the order has been passed on the basis of inquiry report in which the petitioners were not summoned; that out of the 41 defendants number of the defendants were proceeded ex parte and no amount was imposed upon them; that petitioner No,1 remained Chairman of the defunct Society for a short period; that Ghanzafar who remained Chairman from 7-8-2009 to 17-10-1990
(sic) and Asif Javed remained Chairman till 6-11-1991 have not been penalized but decree has been passed against the petitioner and others and liability was to be calculated against each Director and Administration has not been associated by them properly, and that the impugned order is illegal which may be set aside.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent opposes this petitioner on the ground that petitioner No,1 had given a statement on oath in the year 1992 which was signed by him and he gave an undertaking that he was ready to make payment of the damages and accepted the liability; that petitioner entered into an agreement with Maneka on 23-1-1990 and took the responsibility of all the loans and put the signatures on the documents; that petitioner No,1 in his statement admitted that he had joined the society on 8-3-1989 and had become Director on 16-3- 1989; that under section 28 of the Cooperative Societies Act all the Directors are liable to make payment for the period of 2 years, and that the remaining Directors have also shared the liability.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents attached with this petition carefully.
6. The PCBL in the present suit filed before Judicial Officer had impleaded 41 respondents who were Directors of the society and some of the respondents were proceeded ex parte. It is claim of the respondent that management of the society at the very outset in violation of by laws had started banking at high scale by receiving deposits in various schemes and some time management misappropriated and embezzled the funds under the garb of Real Estate Business.
7. Through impugned order the Judicial Officer has held that petitioner No,1 remained Chairman with effect from 14-12-1989 to 13-8-1991 and had signed the statement in token of its correctness Sheikh Farooq petitioner No,1 appeared in defence evidence as DW and admitted during the cross- examination that the defunct corporation had been registered on 8-3-1989 and the said defunct society was being run by Mr. Saeed Maneka and family. Both the petitioners joined the society on 8-3-1989. Petitioner No,1 took charge as Vice-Chairman of the society on 16-3-1989 and this management continued till 20-12-1989. Later on Maneka family resigned from the Management and petitioner No,1 continued as Chairman up to 30-4-1990. Then Mr. Iftikhar became Chairman of the society, but he could not manage to run the society and petitioner again became Chairman on 29-5-1990 after a period of one month up to 7-8-1990. So the crucial period in which the account holders had deposited their amounts the petitioner Sheikh Farooq remained Director/Vice- Chairman of the defunct society, who had prepared the statement which was signed by him on 30-4-1990. The decretal amount is based on the said statement dated 30-4-1990, and it is borne out that most of the embezzlements had occurred during the period of Maneka family and petitioner which is being recovered from the petitioner as the petitioner had an agreement with Maneka family that he would be responsible of all the losses while taking over the charge as Chairman. Even otherwise the petitioner himself admitted to have signed the statement of affairs of company on 30-4-1990 which has been made basis by the judicial Officer for issuance of decree against the petitioner. So the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that Ghanzafar Ali and other Directors, who subsequently took over the charge of the society does not find any force from the evidence available on the record. Hence, it is not a fit case for interference in the impugned order as no loss had occurred during the period of others, but the loss had already been occurred in the periods of petitioners.
8. As far as contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that documentary evidence has not been produced is concerned, suffice it to say that it was admitted by the petitioner that he had joined the Society in the year 1989 and remained Chairman after registration of Maneka family from 30-4-1990. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that signatures of petitioner No,1 had been obtained when he was under detention, but petitioner No,1 failed to show that when he was detained. On the other hand it is proved on record that statement of affairs was prepared on 30-4-1990, which was signed by petitioner No,l. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that other Directors who were proceeded ex parte have not been asked to make the payment of decretal amount by the Judicial Officer, but he has passed the decree only against few Directors including the petitioners. Sufficient it to say that the petitioner Sheikh Farooq had remained in the Management to run the society up to 30-4-1990 during which period loss had actually occurred and subsequently management cannot be held responsible, which has been rightly exonerated by the judicial Officer.
9. As regard the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that inquiry Officer had not appeared during the proceedings, it is noticed that PCBL has produced Mr. Shahid Hussain Wasti General Manager Recovery who has filed suit Exh.PA. Khalid Mehmood appeared for giving Secondary evidenced as Mr. Akbar Bhatti, who prepared the inquiry report has already died on 29- 4-2005 and Khalid Mehmood identified the signatures of Akbar Bhatti on the inquiry report.
10. If the Management of the company has concealed the record in order to avoid any proceedings against them then it cannot get benefit of the Same and on the other hand there is sufficient evidence on the record and admission on the part of petitioner No,2 to maintain the impugned decree. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that no documentary proof of statement was provided by the Management according to the inquiry officer and no decree could be passed on the report is not tenable as the petitioner had remained Director of the society till 30- 4-1990. The Judicial Officer has passed the impugned decree on the valid reasons being supported by the evidence on the record as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, on the other hand the petitioners have failed to show any material for their exoneration, which was ignored while passing the impugned decree. Hence, this petition having on merits is dismissed.