THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DR.G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO. 22786 OF 2000 DATED: 06-02-2008 BETWEEN: Gandham Venkata Swamy Naidu, S/o. Veera Swamy …Petitioner and A.P.Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada, Krishna District, rep.by its Secretary and two others … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DR.G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO. 22786 OF 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner requesting to call for the records relating to the common order made in O.A.No.341 of 1996 on the file of the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada dated 20-09- 2000 which confirms the orders of the second respondent in R.C.No.1963/96-D, dated 21-11-1996 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and void and to direct the respondents to drop all further proceedings. The petitioner was the president of the third respondent Cooperative society. During the period 1992 to 1995, there was an enquiry regarding the affairs of the society. In the enquiry, the concerned authorities found that there was misappropriation of Rs.2,37,201/- and the enquiry officer reported that the advocate of the society by name Sri V.Jagannadha Rao and the petitioner are responsible for committing the irregularities. Therefore, he was directed to restore the amounts noted above along with interest from the dates mentioned in each item to the date of realization to the third respondent society since they proved beyond reasonable doubt that they are responsible for causing deficiency in the asserts of the society by fraudulent means and by breach of trust in relation to the society. On the basis of the report of the enquiry officer under Sec.51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, the Deputy Registrar, Co.operative Societies, Bhimavaram, i.e. the second respondent passed surcharge order dated 21-11-1996 under Sec.60 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act directing the petitioner and other members mentioned in the order to restore the amount to the society with interest at 12% per annum. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred O.A.342 of 1996 and batch before the A.P.Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the submissions made by the parties and the material available on record, dismissed all the appeals by confirming the surcharge order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Bhimavaram. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition contending that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts that the respondents are taking steps to recover the amount from the petitioner, though there is no evidence to prove that he committed the misappropriation of the amount. In spite of the plea of the petitioner, the second respondent fixed the liability on himself and others jointly and severally. Though the petitioner pleaded that there is illegality and irregularity committed by the Tribunal in passing the orders, he has not placed any material to show that he availed the loan after following the procedure prescribed under the law and he took a general plea, when there was an enquiry and when a notice was served on the petitioner that he himself and his family members took the loan. But the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies observed that the petitioner and other loanees have not executed any mortgage bonds to fulfill the formalities as required under law and in the absence of such documents, the plea of the petitioner that he availed a loan from the society cannot be accepted. When once there is no proper account for the amount found deficit in the society, being the president of the society during the relevant period, it is for the petitioner to explain as to what happened to that amount. The mere denial of the allegation that he misappropriated the amount is not sufficient to get over the liability. Therefore, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative societies as well as the Cooperative Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion by fixing the liability on the petitioner and directing him to pay the amount with interest. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that re-enquiry has been ordered which is not permissible under law relied on certain judgments in CHOUTUPPAL HANDLOOM WEAVER’S CO-OP.SOCIETY LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF HANDLOOMS AND DIRECTOR OF HANDLOOMS AND TEXTILES, A.P. AND OTHERS[1] wherein it is held: “Though it is settled principle that the theory of double jeopardy which is a principle applicable to convictions in criminal law as provided in the constitution may not be applicable to administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings, the underlying principle of irrational successive enquiries by statutory authorities being hit by the vice of arbitrariness would be applicable to vitiate any successive enquiries which are ordered without any rational reasons. In the circumstances, having regard to the totally cryptic nature of the impugned orders this Court is unable to sustain the same. No reasons as already stated, have been given for ordering a de novo enquiry. The impugned order of R-1 directing a second enquiry by R-3 is accordingly set aside.” I n THE PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OP. SOCIETY, REP.BY ITS PRESIDENT S. RANGA REDDY Vs. B. MALLA REDDY AND OTHERS[2] it was observed that “It is a well known proposition that a second enquiry or successive enquiries are hit by the theory of double jeopardy to which a person cannot be subjected to. Apart from the reasons advanced by the learned Single Judge, the further fact that remains is that the report of the enquiry officer is only recommendatory in nature and the authority to initiate enquiry has himself the power to either accept the enquiry report or reject it either fully or in some respects and in the event he disagrees with any part of the enquiry report, he can call upon the person proceeded against to explain his conduct and in the course of such proceedings may also call upon him to explain any evidence, documentary or oral, appearing against him. The authority is not bound to accept the views expressed by the Enquiry Officer and can also take a different view on the same set of materials. It was hence not necessary for the District Co-operative Officer to direct a second enquiry if he was dissatisfied with the first enquiry report but could have proceeded in respect of matters which he felt were left untouched by the Enquiry Officer on his own, and called upon the respondent to explain such facts. In that view of the matter, the second proceeding was misconceived and has been rightly quashed. However, it is made clear that the District Co-operative Officer can take action as is available to him as explained above.” In the present case, though it is alleged by the petitioner that two or three enquiries were ordered, no material is placed in proof of the same and only one enquiry report dated 30-05-1996 is available on record. The judgments referred above were in respect of various reports submitted by the successive enquiry officers on which the courts made the observations. After going through the entire material, I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 and I do not find any merits in the writ petition to issue any direction as prayed for. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ DR.G.YETHIRAJULU, J. Dt: 06-02-2008 Rns [1] (1999(5) ALT 576) [2] 1996(3) ALT 488 (D.B.)