' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---Facts giving rise to these petitions for leave to appeal briefly stated are that the veterans Cooperative Housing Society was registered under Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 on 23-10-1985 of which a managing committee consisting of eight members was constituted to lookafter its affairs. Col. (Retd.) M.R. Hassan petitioner was the President of the Managing Committee and Major (Retd.) Raja M. Sadiq was its Vice-President. The Managing Committee of the Society was ordered to be superseded by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies/Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad (respondent No,2) and an Administrator was appointed for a period of two months to lookafter the affairs of the said Society. A special audit was ordered to be conducted on 20-3-1993. The audit report prepared was submitted to respondent No,2 by Messrs M. Tahir Siddiqui and Co. On 13th October, 1993. Respondent No,2 in purported exercise of his powers under section 50-A read with section 22-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 issued show-cause notices to all the eight members of the Managing Committee including the petitioners and also to the Ex-Secretary Major (Retd.) Anwar Hussain and Ex-Member Major (Retd.) Abdul Majid with as many as 11 charges against Col. (Retd.) M.R. Hassan and 9 charges against Major (Retd.) Raja M.
Sadiq petitioners, which mainly pertained to financial irregularities committed during the tenure when they were holding such posts, to which they submitted their replies. Ultimately respondent No,2 passed an award on 2-12-1993 holding Col. (Retd.) M.R. Hassan petitioner responsible for causing loss to the tune' of Rs,1,27,25,487 to the Society and directed the petitioner to make good the loss immediately while Maj. (Retd.) Raja M. Sadiq petitioner was held responsible for causing loss to the Society in the sum of Rs,1,21,62,136. Both the petitioners preferred appeals against the award before respondent No,1; namely, the Chief Commissioner, Islamabad Capital Territory, exercising the power of Provincial Government under the Act.
2. The appeals of the petitioners were partly accepted by respondent No,1 and the case was remanded for reconsideration of some of the charges levelled against the petitioners. However, with regard to rest of the charges it was held that the same have been proved and to that extent their appeals were dismissed holding M.R. Hassan liable to pay a sum of Rs,86,57,652 and Raja M.
Sadiq for Rs,91,29,349 for the time being.
3. The award as well as orders passed in appeals were challenged before the Lahore High Court in Writ Petitions Nos.80 of 1994 and 81 of 1994 by M.R. Hassan and Raja M. Sadiq, respectively. Their main grievance raised in the Writ Petitions was that as required by section 50-A of the Act prior to the passing of an order no elaborate inquiry was held regarding the conduct of the petitioners which required recording of evidence and chance of cross-examination of the witnesses to the petitioner in rebuttal of the charges which has not been done. It therefore vitiated the entire proceedings. Furthermore that the order dated 2-12-1993 passed by respondent No,2 was not based on my evidence and the material relied was not admissible. That the audit report dated 20- 3-1993 was not a legal evidence as the petitioners have not been confronted with it and on its basis the petitioners have been held responsible for the loss sustained. That the inquiry conducted was mala fide and against the principle of natural justice. They have also challenged the correctness of the charges levelled against them which have been explained in detail during the hearing but they have been ignored.
4. The learned High Court taking into consideration the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners took up each and every item of the charge-sheet and considered the same in the light of objection raised to the orders of respondents Nos.1 and 2 and held as under:-- "A perusal of the impugned orders and other material on record shows that the factual aspects of the allegations were virtually admitted by the petitioners. They tried to take refuge behind by-laws or proceedings of General Body Meeting which really did not come to their rescue. The evidence in the case as urged by the learned counsel for respondents was almost entirely documentary. The Audit Report was provided to the petitioners and they had given detailed replies to the show-cause notices. It has not been urged by the petitioners that they were prejudiced by not providing the record to them, in preparation of their defence. The petitioners never sought to lead any other evidence before the Registrar or the appellate authority. Receipt of Honoraria; allotment of plots at concessional rates; crediting of Rs,93,930 (the amount of interest due to Society) into each of their accounts; opening of account with Service Cooperative Corporation Limited and deposits of Society's fund therein have been admitted by the petitioners themselves. They tried to take shelter behind one or other by-law or proceeding and other than that they never asked for any other evidence to be adduced and as a matter of fact none was required to be led after admission of the petitioners. As far fixing of liability regarding encashment of bearer or causing of loss to Society by over-charging it for price of land is concerned, the lower functionaries (which speak loudly enough) had adequately and appropriately achieved the result. What evidence was sought to be led has not been shown and therefore no procedural impropriety has been found in the proceedings before the respondents and it is held that they acted with fairness in the matter."
' With regard to mala fide the learned High Court observed that no material was available for substituting such plea, therefore, it was held that order dated 13-1-1993 was competently passed and the special audit was legitimately made under section 22-A or section 50-A of the Act particularly in view of the initiation of the proceeding by consent of the petitioners. That the orders were based on just, and proper appraisal of the material on record. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions were dismissed.
6. The learned counsel for the parties, for seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned High Court passed in the aforementioned two Writ Petitions, have reiterated the same contentions, which have been duly considered in the appeals filed by, the petitioners before the respondent No,1 and in the Writ Petitions by the learned High Court. It is not denied that special audit report was submitted in compliance with the order competently passed by respondent No,2 and that on receipt of, such audit report copies were supplied to them and specific charges of financial irregularities and illegalities causing loss to the tune of the amount mentioned therein were also duly communicated to the petitioners in the form of charge-sheet which was duly replied. As the main charges were based on documentary evidence, therefore, these were not denied, as observed by the lower forums, but the petitioners wanted to justify such financial irregularities by taking shelter behind the by-laws and the resolution of the Managing Committee.
Such charges were, therefore, decided on the basis of the record vide the impugned order of respondent No,2 after repelling the import of such bye-laws or resolution on the charges. In the appeals filed before the competent authority (respondent < No,1) the allegations made against the audit report resulting in issuance of charge-sheet to the petitioners have been specifically item- wise considered in detail and decided. During the hearing of the appeals by respondent No,1 certain objections were raised regarding some of the charges. That the findings given thereon could not be proved without recording, evidence prevailed, and it was therefore, that the appeals of the petitioners to that extent were accepted and the case was remanded with a direction to make further inquiry and to provide sufficient opportunity, to the petitioners of cross-examination of respondents' witnesses and to afford them further opportunity to produce evidence in defence.
However, those charges which were based on documentary evidence and did not require recording of any other evidence, as already observed above, and which were not denied, were maintained and petitioners" appeals in respect thereof were dismissed.
7. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the authority relied upon in support thereof before the learned High Court have been elaborately dealt with in the judgment against which leave to appeal is sought for. It has been observed by the learned High Court that the charges maintained by respondent No, 2 have been admitted but the petitioners made efforts to justify such financial losses in which efforts they failed before both the forums of competent jurisdiction. No objection, therefore, could be raised against such orders of the special forums in Constitutional jurisdiction.
We find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned High Court in holding that the impugned orders were passed on proper appreciation of material on record after due consideration of the pleas of both the parties. No jurisdictional error or procedural irregularity or impropriety has been pointed out in the well considered orders of respondents Nos.1 and 2 that of the learned High Court. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and both these petitions are dismissed.