Summary: The Bombay High Court has overturned previous decisions against Vilas Gopalkrishna Shouche, a former manager of Rupee Cooperative Bank. The case has been sent back for a new review, focusing on individual responsibilities and fair procedures.
In a complicated situation with many legal requests, the Bombay High Court looked into issues related to Rupee Cooperative Bank. Vilas Gopalkrishna Shouche challenged the decisions holding him responsible for financial losses under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.
The Authorized Officer had initially issued decisions under a section of the MCS Act, holding Vilas Gopalkrishna Shouche and other bank officers responsible for poor financial management. However, the court found these decisions lacked specific evidence against individual officers.
"The findings are written in general terms and treat all persons alike, without distinguishing between the decision-making powers of the Managing Committee and the limited administrative roles of the officers."
The Appellate Authority, led by the Additional Chief Secretary, supported the initial decisions without doing an independent review. This lack of careful examination led to the current court decision to send the case back.
"The Appellate Authority has merely repeated the same conclusions without any separate or independent analysis."
Judge Amit Borkar emphasized the need for detailed and specific findings. The court noted the absence of clear evidence linking individual actions to the bank's losses.
"The order does not explain how such participation caused that loss. There is no detailed computation or reasoning showing how the total loss was calculated."
The court highlighted the importance of following Rule 72 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Rules, which requires specific charges and a fair hearing.
"Before holding any officer liable under Section 88, the Registrar must strictly follow the procedure under Rule 72."
The case has been sent back to the Authorized Officer for a new inquiry, with instructions to follow legal procedures and ensure a fair hearing for all parties involved.
"The fresh inquiry shall be completed within a reasonable time, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order."
This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to fair procedures and the need for evidence-based conclusions in cases of financial mismanagement.
