THE HONOURABLE Smt. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI Writ petition No.5933 of 2000 ORDER: Assailing the proceedings bearing No. 1246/97/D(10), dated 28.2.2000 of the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The facts in brief are that the petitioner herein was working as Supervisor at Krishna District Development Cooperative Central Bank of Nagayalanka branch, the petitioner was suspended from service on the ground that certain irregularities of financial misappropriation have been committed by him. An enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry into the same and the enquiry officer on conclusion of enquiry stated to have submitted his report. Basing on the report of the enquiry officer, the 1st respondent reinstated the petitioner into service. Subsequently, the 1st respondent basing on the report of the enquiry officer, has issued notice to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent then filed an application before the 1st respondent asking him to implead the petitioner also as party to the said proceedings. Thereafter, the 1st respondent without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner has impleaded the petitioner as party to the proceedings under Section 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) and thereafter issued the impugned proceedings dated 28.2.2000 calling upon the petitioner and two others to explain as to why the amount of Rs.9,41,368/- shall not be recovered from them along with interest at 18% from the date of fraud till the date of recovery. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the enquiry officer who conducted the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act did not fix any liability on the on the petitioner, the 1st respondent ought not to have initiated the surcharge proceedings under Section 60(1) of the Act. Since the 1st respondent wanted to implead the petitioner at the behest of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent ought to have issued a notice before impleading him as a party to the said proceedings. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the proceedings. Admittedly, the Cooperative Sub-Registrar, Mandapaka who was appointed as enquiry officer to conduct enquiry under Section 51 of the Act, clearly stated that the petitioner herein who worked as Circle Supervisor during the period from 6.1.1994 to 9.8.197 has failed to ensure that the loans are covered by loan bonds. He also opined that the petitioner simply recommended for sanction of the loans without actually verifying the declarations and the loan bonds. Since the petitioner failed to discharge his legitimate duties of Supervisor, he had suggested for taking disciplinary action against him. It is necessary to extract Section 60(1) of the Act, which reads thus: “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where in the course of an audit under Section 50 or an inquiry under Section 51 or an inspection under Section 52 or Section 53, or the winding up of a society, it appears that any person who is or was entrusted with the organisation, affairs or management of the society or any past or present officer or servant of the society has misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property or has been guilty of breach of trust in relation to the society or has caused any deficiency in the assets of the society by breach of trust or wilful negligence or has made any payment contrary to the provisions of this Act, the rules or the bye laws, the Registrar himself or any person specially authorised by him in this behalf, of his own motion or on the application of the committee, liquidator or any creditor or contributor, may inquire into the conduct of such person or officer or servant and make an order requiring him to repay or restore the money or property or any part thereof with interest at such rate as the registrar or the person authorised as aforesaid thinks just or to contribute such sum to the assets of the society by way of compensation in respect of the misappropriation, misapplication of funds, fraudulent retention, breach of trust or wilful negligence as the Registrar or the person authorised as aforesaid thinks just. Provided that no order shall be passed against any person referred to in this sub-section unless the person concerned has been given an opportunity of making his representation. “ Admittedly, the petitioner approached this Court against the impugned proceedings dated 28.2.2000. In view of the fact that the petitioner did not submit any explanation to the impugned proceedings and in view of the fact that under the provisions of the Act, the petitioner is entitled to submit his explanation/representation to the 1st respondent against the impugned proceedings, I am not inclined to interfere with the said proceedings. However, the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to submit his explanation/representation to the 1st respondent against the impugned proceedings dated 28.2.2000. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 12th August, 2010 pnb