[2026:RJ-JP:5144] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8681/2025 Hanuman Prasad Meena S/o Shri Kalyan Mal Meena, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village Khuredi, Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Registrar Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan, Sahkar Bhawan, Jaipur. 2. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Tonk. 3. Nathdi Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Nathdi, Tehsil Piplu, District Tonk, Through Its Manager. 4. The Central Cooperative Bank Tonk, Through Its Managing Director. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yudhishter Ratnoo, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hansraj Kuldeep, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 04/02/2026 1. By way of filing this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.12.2024 issued by the office of Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Tonk, whereby enquiry under Section 57(1) of Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 (for short ‘the Act of 2001’) was initiated against the petitioner for alleged embezzlement of Rs.3,23,000/-. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Sahayak Vyavasthapak (Manager) of Nathdi Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited, Panchayat Samiti Piplu, District Tonk. He submits that all the [2026:RJ-JP:5144] (2 of 5) [CW-8681/2025] financial affairs all the society were subjected to audit after end of every financial year. He submitted that such audit report is submitted by the Auditor to the Registrar, and as per audit report of the Auditor for the year 2016-17 and 2017-18, which were submitted by him in the year 2017-18, the alleged financial irregularities were reflected in the audit report. Even in the report of financial year 2020-21, the Auditor specifically recommended for taking action against the petitioner for alleged embezzlement of Rs.3,23,000/-. Learned counsel submits that however, it appears that the authorities were not satisfied by the earlier reports given by the Auditor, therefore, no action was taken against him at the relevant time. 3. Learned counsel submits that first time vide order dated 27.12.2024 an enquiry under Section 57(1) of the Act of 2001 has been directed to be initiated by the Deputy Registrar, Tonk, by appointing Inspector-Co-operatives as Enquiry Officer. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon proviso pointed to Section 57(1), 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: [2026:RJ-JP:5144] (3 of 5) [CW-8681/2025] • 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 in the interest of the society with a common business prudence shall not be a subject matter of such inquiry. 5. By placing reliance upon the aforesaid provision, learned counsel submits that the aforesaid proviso has been enacted by the legislature with the sole intention of not unsettling the earlier financial accounts after a long period and prohibits any kind of enquiry after expiry of 6 years from the date of an act or omission or after the expiry of 2 years from the date of knowledge of Registrar of such act or omission. Learned counsel further submits that in the present case, vide order dated 27.12.2024, the enquiry is being initiated for an incident which took place in the year 2016-17, and as it was also reflected in the audit report of the relevant year, therefore, there arises presumption that the incident was in the knowledge of the Registrar. Learned counsel submits that thus, the order dated 27.12.2024 directing for initiating enquiry after lapse of more than 6 years is apparently against the provisions of proviso to Section 57(1), hence, same may be quashed and set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that it is wrong on the part of the petitioner to submit that the said incident of [2026:RJ-JP:5144] (4 of 5) [CW-8681/2025] embezzlement of Rs.3,23,000/- was in knowledge of the Registrar. He submits that first time it came to the knowledge of the Registrar only in the year 2023 when the Inspector Grade-I (Special Audit) brought it to the knowledge of Deputy Registrar, who in turn informed the Registrar. Hence, in the present case, enquiry has been initiated within a period of 2 years from the date of knowledge of Registrar, which comes within the purview of proviso to Section 57(1), therefore, there is no illegality in the action of the respondents. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Bare perusal of Section 57(1) of the Act of 2001 would make it clear that the basis of knowledge to the Registrar has been specifically shown as audit, enquiry, inspection or a liquidator’s report. It has also not been disputed by learned counsel for the respondents that audit report of every financial year is placed before the Registrar. In the instant case, the alleged incident of embezzlement by the petitioner was initially reflected in the audit report of 2016-17 as well as in the following year’s audit report of 2017-18. Even the Auditor while giving his report in the year 2021-22 specifically recommended for taking action, yet no action was taken at the relevant time. Hence, under these circumstances, where it is apparent that the action of initiating enquiry has been taken after lapse of more than 6 years from the date of alleged incident and after more than 2 years from the date of knowledge of the Registrar, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 27.12.2024 directing for initiation of enquiry is in violation of statutory provision mentioned in proviso [2026:RJ-JP:5144] (5 of 5) [CW-8681/2025] to Section 57(1) of the Act of 2001. Hence, under such circumstances, the order dated 27.12.2024 is hereby quashed and set aside. Petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits. 9. The writ petition filed by the petitioner stands allowed accordingly. 10. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /3