JUDGMENT N.K. Mehrotra, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Nakul Dubey for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned standing counsel for the opposite party No. 1.
2. This is a writ petition for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 27,3.1998 (Annexure-1), pronounced by the Arbitrator under Section 70 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, the judgment and order dated 11.5.1999 (Annexure-2) and the order dated 27.5.2003 (Annexure-3) passed by the Co-operative Tribunal, U. P., Lucknow.
3. The petitioner worked as Secretary of Asha Pushp Vihar Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd., Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as 'Samiti') during the period from 1982 to 9.3.1993 when his services were terminated and the said termination order is sub-judice in some other writ petition in the High Court. Asha Pushp Vihar Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd., Ghaziabad is a primary co-operative housing society. The Secretary of the Samiti sent a letter on 12.3.1997 to the petitioner for giving details of the deposits received by the petitioner in cash and through pay orders by different persons. The petitioner was charged that he had not deposited the pay orders as well as the cash amount received from different persons in the Bank and he was charged for embezzlement and he was asked to explain the details of those amounts which have been given in para 8 of the writ petition and in the letter dated 12.3.1997 (Annexure-4). The petitioner sent a reply on 20.3.1997 (Annexure-5). A perusal of the reply (Annexure-5) dated 20.3.1997 shows that he nowhere denies that such amount as stated in Annexure-4 were received by him or if, these amounts were received, he nowhere stated that those amounts were deposited in a particular Bank. After that the Secretary of the Samiti, the opposite party No. 3 filed an Arbitration Case No. 70 of Co-operative Societies Act on 26.7.1997 for recovery of Rs. 94,000.
4. The Arbitrator gave the award Annexure-1. This award has been challenged on the ground that it was given without giving opportunity of hearing and it was an ex parte award. This contention is not substantiated by the admitted facts. In para 12 of the writ petition, the service of the notice is admitted. It has been argued that it is not a reasoned order. This contention has also no force. In the award there is a reasoned order. The adequacy or inadequacy of the reason cannot be seen in the writ petition. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected all the contentions of the petitioner and pronounced the judgment on 11.5.1999 which is Annexure-2. The petitioner filed a review petition which has also been rejected by the Tribunal on 27.5.2003. The main contention of the petitioner is that there can be no embezzlement if, the pay orders are not deposited in the Bank account. The Tribunal has not accepted this contention. I find that besides the pay order, there is a list of cash amount received by the petitioner. I find that from the very beginning, he has submitted the reply upto the writ petition. The petitioner has not denied the receipt of the pay orders and the cash amounts from different persons and he has not disclosed the name of the Bank where he deposited. He simply states that the opposite party No. 3 had committed a theft on 6.1.1987 for which the F.I.R. was lodged. Even if, it is presumed to be correct, the petitioner should have come with clean hands by saying that these pay orders and cash amounts were deposited by him in a particular account in the Bank. He has not come with clean hands by stating so in the plain words. I have seen the impugned judgments (Annexures-1 to 3). There is no error apparent on the face of the record. Admittedly, the petitioner was duly served but he did not participate in the proceedings. There is no violation of principles of natural justice in pronouncement of the award and the hearing of the appeal by the Tribunal. The conduct of the petitioner himself is such that the discretionary relief by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be granted.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed at admission stage.