[2026:RJ-JP:6919] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2912/2026 Devendra Singh Verma S/o Shri Sardar Singh Verma, Aged About 62 Years, R/o A-861, Chandra Vardai Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Register Cooperative Society, Rajasthan, Nehru Shankar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, 22 Godam Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Additional Registrar (Udyog), Office Of Registrar Cooperative Society, Shankar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, 22 Godam Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Additional Registrar, Cooperative Society, Ajmer Division, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 4. Managing Director, Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Sikar Head Office, Basant Vihar, Sikar, Rajasthan. 5. Managing Director, Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 6. Managing Director, Ajmer Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited, Beawar Road, Opposite Hmt, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C. P. Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 13/02/2026 1. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that while the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Manager (Project) in RCDF on deputation, on 13.05.2021 incident of breaking out fire at Cattle Feed Plant, Lambiya Kalan, Bhilwara [2026:RJ-JP:6919] (2 of 5) [CW-2912/2026] took place. Thereafter, no enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and on attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner has retired w.e.f. 31.12.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that behind his back and without issuing any notice to the petitioner, one enquiry was conducted by the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ajmer Division, Ajmer under Section 55 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Act of 2001’) and in such enquiry, petitioner has been held as liable for causing loss to the RCDF on account of such fire and finding has been given that amount of Rs.94,36,167/- be recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that since, such report was submitted by the Additional Registrar, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, such report was nullity qua the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel submits that on the basis of report dated 24.07.2025 submitted by the Additional Registrar under Section 55 of the Act of 2001, the Managing Director, Central Co- operative Bank Limited, Sikar has issued one notice dated 05.12.2025 for conducting enquiry under Section 57 (1) of the Act of 2001. 3. Learned counsel submits that bare perusal of notice dated 05.12.2025 would make it clear that foundation of such enquiry under Section 57 (1) of the Act of 2001 is the enquiry report dated 24.07.2025 earlier submitted by the Additional Registrar and since, such enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner, therefore, in case, any opportunity of hearing is afforded to the petitioner pursuant to notice dated 05.12.2025, [2026:RJ-JP:6919] (3 of 5) [CW-2912/2026] such hearing would be post decisional hearing and would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned counsel further submits that thus, the respondents are adamant to punish the petitioner on the basis of an enquiry report, which has been submitted by the Enquiry Officer in utter disregard of principles of natural justice. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6. Impugned notice dated 05.12.2025 has been issued by the Managing Director and Enquiry Officer under Section 57(1) of the Act of 2001, which reads as under:- “57. Surcharge.- (1) If on the basis of an audit, inquiry, inspection or a Liquidator's report made under the provisions of this Act, it comes to the knowledge of the Registrar that any person, who has taken any part in the organisation or management of such society or who is or has at any time been an officer or an employee of the society, has made any payment contrary to the provisions of this Act, the rules or the bye-laws or has caused any deficiency in the assets of the society by wilful negligence or has misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property belonging to such society, the Registrar may, inquire himself or direct any person authorised by him by an order in writing in this behalf, to inquire into the conduct of such person: • Provided that no inquiry into the conduct shall be done under this section by a person who has earlier submitted report of audit, inquiry, inspection or liquidation in the same matter: • Provided further that no such inquiry shall be held after the expiry of six years from the date of an act or omission or after the expiry of two years from the date of knowledge of the Registrar of such act or omission: • Provided also that any business loss occurred due to an act done or decision taken [2026:RJ-JP:6919] (4 of 5) [CW-2912/2026] in the interest of the society with a common business prudence shall not be a subject matter of such inquiry.” 7. Bare reading of aforesaid provision would make it clear that the basis and foundation of an enquiry under Section 57(1) of the Act of 2001 is either audit, inquiry, inspection or a Liquidator’s report, which is brought to the knowledge of the Registrar to the effect that any person, who has taken any part in the organisation or management of such society or who is or has at any time been an officer or an employee of the society, has committed any misconduct or been negligent or has misappropriated any money, then the Registrar may conduct an enquiry either himself or through any person. Section 57(2) of the Act of 2001 makes it clear that while conducting enquiry under Section 57(1) of the Act of 2001, opportunity of defending the allegations shall be given to the concerned Officer and only, thereafter, any order shall be passed by the Registrar. 8. Thus, it comes out from bare reading of provisions of Section 57 of the Act of 2001 that the enquiry under Section 55 of the Act of 2001 was a preliminary enquiry, which is the basis of initiating further enquiry under Section 57(1) of the Act of 2001. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing during enquiry under Section 55 of the Act of 2001, would not prejudice the case of the petitioner as the enquiry report earlier submitted under Section 55 of the Act of 2001 would be nothing more than the basis for initiating fresh enquiry under Section 57 of the Act of 2001 against the petitioner, in which he shall be granted complete opportunity of hearing. [2026:RJ-JP:6919] (5 of 5) [CW-2912/2026] 9. Even otherwise, without submitting any reply to the show cause notice, approaching this Court by way of filing writ petition is premature exercise by the petitioner. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, no interference is warranted at this stage and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. 10. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /4