MANMOHAN SARIN, J 1. Petitioner R.C.Kohli by this writ petition assails the order dated 8th June, 2007 passed by the Chairperson, Delhi Cooperative Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.214 and 286/2002. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Tribunal has modified the order passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and resultantly held the petitioner and Shri Mohar Singh Ram Narayan, Junior Vice President as responsible for the loss to the society. The Tribunal further held that no other office bearer or Managing Committee member or Shri Munshi Ram could be held responsible for the loss. 2. Petitioner by this writ petition assails the finding holding him responsible for the loss as also the exoneration of other members of the Managing Committee and Shri Munshi Ram. Facts relevant for the disposal of writ petition may be noted briefly. One Shri P.N.Manchanda was appointed as an Inquiry Officer to go into embezzlement and shortage of cash amounting to Rs.3,52,963.60 of the society during the period from 1.4.1997 to 22.11.1997. The Inquiry Officer conducted an inquiry and found that Shri Rai Singh Kataria, Cashier was receiving contributions and making disbursements in consultation and direction from the Junior Vice President Shri Mohar Singh Ram Naryan. The Inquiry Officer observed that all the cash was handled by the Cashier. He further observed that the Junior Vice President and Cashier used to dispose of the applications for non deduction of repayment instalments of loans, refund of fixed deposits. Meetings of the Managing Committee were also held. The Secretary i.e Shri R.C.Kohli, petitioner herein used to write all the proceedings of the meetings. In the event, Shri R.S.Kataria, cashier expired on 1.7.1998. .3. The Inquiry Officer concluded and held late Shri Rai Singh Kataria, Shri Mohar Singh Ram Naryan, the Junior Vice President responsible for the embezzlement. He further concluded that petitioner, the Secretary of the Society could not escape his responsibility and held him jointly responsible for the loss of Rs.3,52,963.60 to the society. Following the Inquiry Report, .the Registrar, Cooperative Societies initiated proceedings under section 59(2) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972. Show cause notices were issued to Shri Rai Singh Kataria, Sh. Mohar Singh Ram Naryan and Shri R.C.Kohli, petitioner. The Registrar dropped the proceedings against Shri Rai Singh Kataria following his demise. Before the Registrar Sh. Following the Inquiry Report, .the Registrar, Cooperative Societies initiated proceedings under section 59(2) of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972. Show cause notices were issued to Shri Rai Singh Kataria, Sh. Mohar Singh Ram Naryan and Shri R.C.Kohli, petitioner. The Registrar dropped the proceedings against Shri Rai Singh Kataria following his demise. Before the Registrar Sh. Mohar Singh Ram Naryan claimed that all work and transactions were done in consultation with the Managing Committee and the records were lying in the custody of the Secretary. Financial transactions were done by the Treasurer of the Society and he was not aware of the shortage of cash in the balance sheet. The Secretary, Mr.R.C.Kohli claimed that daily book was not cross checked by any office bearer and was in the control of the Cashier. He further submitted that one Shri Munshi Ram had been appointed as an Internal Auditor to audit the daily book and ledger and it was his duty to keep an eye on the account books maintained by the Cashier and point out any shortcomings or defalcations. Petitioner also claimed that the Cashier carried out all transcations under the guidance and directions of Shri Mohar Singh Ram Naryan. However, Sh. Mohar Singh Ram Naryan, Junior Vice President claimed that all cash transactions and disbursements were done by the Cashier himself. 4. The Registrar after hearing submissions of the affected persons, concluded that Secretary of the Society being custodian of the records and Principal Officer of society was somehow trying to shirk his responsibility by claiming that he was simply the custodian of the records. The Registrar concluded that the charged persons could not escape from their responsibility by shifting the burden on others and that they had failed to keep a check on the accounts/transactions and records of the society. The Registrar fixed the responsibility and ordered the embezzled amount to be recovered from Shri Mohar Singh Ram Narain, Ex.Junior Vice President, Shri R.C.Kohli, Ex.Secretary and Shri Munshi Ram, Internal Auditor and all the office bearers and members of the Managing Committee. 5. Appeal No. 214/2002 by officers bearers of Ex. Managing Committee and appeal No. 286/2002 was preferred by the appellant before Delhi Cooperative Tribunal. It was urged by the appellant, Sh. 5. Appeal No. 214/2002 by officers bearers of Ex. Managing Committee and appeal No. 286/2002 was preferred by the appellant before Delhi Cooperative Tribunal. It was urged by the appellant, Sh. R.C. Kohli that since the Inquiry Officer had not held any of the office bearers or the members of the Managing Committee responsible for the embezzlement, it was not permissible for the Registrar, Cooperative Societies to include them at the stage of proceedings under Section 59(2) of Delhi Cooperative Societies Act 1972 and to hold them responsible for the said embezzlement. The Tribunal ruled that the purpose of section 59(2) inquiry was with regard to apportionment of the loss among the persons who had been held responsible under section 59(1) of the Act. It was wrong on the part of Registrar, Cooperative Societies to go beyond the inquiry report under section 59(1) and to hold other office bearers/persons and members of the Ex.Managing Committee as responsible for the loss. Tribunal observed that Shri Munshi (appellant no.7 before Tribunal) Ram was a retired employee of the society and was appointed as an Internal Auditor and he was in no way responsible for the day to day transactions of the society. Another infirmity noted by the Tribunal was that though notice was served on the President on behalf of the society, however other members of the Managing Committee were not served with individual notices and accordingly Registrar could not have held them responsible without providing them an opportunity of defence. .6. We have considered the submissions made by the petitioner. We are in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that members of the Managing Committee who had neither been served with the notices nor given an opportunity to show cause, could not have been fastened with the liability by the Registrar under section 59(2) of the Act. Moreover, they were not the persons held responsible under Section 59(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the decision of the Tribunal holding that other office bearers or members of the Managing Committee were not .responsible for the loss to the Society, does not call for any interference except the case of Shri Munshi Ram, the Internal Auditor to which we shall advert later. 7. Accordingly, the decision of the Tribunal holding that other office bearers or members of the Managing Committee were not .responsible for the loss to the Society, does not call for any interference except the case of Shri Munshi Ram, the Internal Auditor to which we shall advert later. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that being the Secretary of the Society, petitioner was not responsible for collection of cash and the Cashier performed these functions under the guidance of Junior Vice President Shri Mohar Singh Ram Naryan. Counsel submits that as per the guidelines, the primary function of the Secretary was to keep the records of the society including account books and vouchers. He was the custodian thereof. He was not responsible for the veracity or correctness of the cash transactions as were recorded by the Cashier or Treasurer or Junior Vice President. 8. We are not persuaded to accept the submission as made by the learned counsel. The position of the Secretary in a Society is a prime position and he is responsible for recording the deliberations and the proceedings of all meetings. Secretary is the pivot around which the society functions. It is inconceivable that the Secretary would not come to know of the wrong doings and embezzlements, especially the transactions in which cash receipts were not recorded or of over payments as authorization for each payment would have been through the Secretary. It is evidently a case where the Secretarys conduct itself has been one of wilful negligence and not mere negligence. 9. Reference may usefully be made to the decision of the Privy Council 107 I.C 1928 124, and judicial pronouncements in Subammal and ors. versus The President, The Tenkasi Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd reported at AIR 1977 Madras 92, Poosapati Madhava Varma and anr. versus District Collector, Vishakapatnan and anr. AIR 1979 Andhra Pradesh 3 as regards the meaning of wilful negligence. The entire conduct of the petitioner in these transactions which were spread over a long period of time smacks of wilful negligence and deliberate acts and omissions. In our view, the Inquiry Officer, Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the Tribunal have rightly fastened the liability on him and it is not open to him to wash away the same on the plea of cash handling and maintenance of accounts not being his responsibility. 10. In our view, the Inquiry Officer, Registrar, Cooperative Societies and the Tribunal have rightly fastened the liability on him and it is not open to him to wash away the same on the plea of cash handling and maintenance of accounts not being his responsibility. 10. We have also considered the role and involvement of Shri Munshi Ram, the Internal Auditor. It appears from the report of the Inquiry Officer that the role of Shri Munshi Ram, Internal Auditor did not figure in the proceedings before him. It was only when the Registrar, Cooperative Societies while proceeding under section 59(2) of the Act issued notices to the office bearers that the petitioner in this case Mr.R.C.Kohli brought on record the engagement of the Internal Audito,r Mr.Munshi Ram, who had been engaged especially for internal audit during the relevant period. The Tribunal has simply held that Internal Auditor may have been negligent. However, keeping in mind the nature of transactions, manner of embezzlement as has been brought out in the inquiry report and the order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, we are of the view that role of the Internal Auditor requires to be probed. Accordingly, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we direct that an Inquiry be conducted by an Inquiry Officer, appointed under Delhi Cooperative Societies Act after serving notice on aforesaid internal auditor and in case he is also found to have caused loss to the society, action in accordance with law for recovery of the loss as may be found apportionable to him be taken. Save for the aforesaid direction,Writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.