IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 15320 of 2000 Between: V.V.KRISHNA RAO, S/o.Satyanarayana, Iragavaram Primary Agrl. Coop. Society, West Godavari District, R/o.D.No.28-18-24th Ward, Sattirajuvari Street, Tanuku, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.Cooperative Tribunal, Rep. by its Secretary, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2 Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kovvuru, West Godavari District. 3 Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Rep. by its President, Irragavaram, Kovvuru, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particulary one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to O.A.No.138/96 of the 1st Respondent and its order dated:11.1.2000 and QUASH the same and further declare that the orders passed by 2nd Respondent in Rc.No.3686/87/B/C, dated:25.4.1988 as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.15320 of 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled to have the proceedings of the 1st respondent in O.A.138 of 1996 dated 11.1.2000, conﬁrming the orders passed by the 2nd respondent dated 25.4.1988, quashed as being illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner, a paid secretary of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, was alleged to have misappropriated funds of the society and, on the basis of veriﬁcation, surcharge proceedings were initiated against him. The Deputy Registrar issued surcharge notice dated 14.10.1987 calling upon the petitioner to restore a sum of Rs.2,99,864.50. The petitioner’s grievance is that, despite his having asked to be furnished certain documents, the Deputy Registrar had asked him to peruse the documents but had not furnished him with copies thereof. Eventually the surcharge order came to be passed on 20.4.1988, aggrieved by which the petitioner preferred an appeal in O.A.138 of 1996. The Tribunal, by way of an elaborate order, dismissed the appeal. It held that the petitioner herein was given suﬃcient opportunity to peruse the records and submit his representation, but he did not avail the opportunity given to him and had resorted to dilatory tactics. The Tribunal also noted that the lower authority had expressed his inability to supply documents relating to a period of three years as they were voluminous in nature and had instructed the petitioner to peruse the records which the petitioner had accepted and as such there was no violation of the rules of natural justice. The Tribunal also observed that the lower authority had made a detailed enquiry, had thoroughly examined the inspection report, had absolved all others for want of adequate evidence, had come to the conclusion that the petitioner had misappropriated Rs.2,93,972-34 and had, accordingly, issued the surcharge order. The Tribunal also noted that the petitioner herein had failed to put-forth his defence in the enquiry proceedings and that it was not open to him to turn around and contend that he was denied reasonable opportunity. After extracting details of the amounts misappropriated, the Tribunal confirmed the surcharge orders and dismissed the appeal. Sri M.Surender Rao, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, would contend that, since the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case of the very same charges for which surcharge proceeding were initiated against him for misappropriation and breach of trust, the surcharge proceedings could not be sustained. Learned Counsel would rely on A.D.S.Sarma v. Dy. Registrar of Cooperative Society, Amalapura, E.G.Dist[1]. It must be noted that this plea has not even been taken in the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition. The surcharge order passed by the 1st respondent is dated 25.4.1998 which is prior to the order passed by the II Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku in C.C.No.185 of 1990 dated 3.8.1998. The judgment in A.D.S.Sarma1 relied on by the petitioner is also of no assistance to him. This Court did not hold that in no case could surcharge proceedings be initiated and had only observed that in cases where the facts and circumstances were similar and where, on the basis of similar evidence, the criminal court had passed an order of acquittal it would be unreasonable to subject the petitioner to surcharge proceedings on the very same charge. It is only in cases where the charges alleged and the evidence adduced both before the criminal court and in the surcharge proceedings are similar, would acquittal in the criminal case preclude initiation of surcharge proceedings. In the absence of any plea it is not for this Court to conduct a roving enquiry to ascertain whether or not the allegations in the surcharge proceedings and the criminal proceedings are identical and whether the evidence is the same. In any event, the order of acquittal by the Criminal Court was after the surcharge order was passed by the 2nd respondent. A subsequent acquittal in the criminal case would not vitiate a prior surcharge order. Viewed from any angle, this contention urged on behalf of the petitioner does not merit acceptance. Since no other contention has been raised before this Court, the writ petition must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________ 28-8-2008 asp [1] 2002(5) ALD 520