THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.Nos.26063 of 2003 and 196 of 2004 COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions are filed by the same petitioner against the same respondents and the subject-matter is inter- related. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. The petitioner was appointed as Managing Director of the 4th respondent-Society, in November 2003. His services were terminated. This was followed by an enquiry under Section 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act (for short ‘the Act’), into the affairs of the Society. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report, pointing out several financial and administrative lapses, on the part of the petitioner. Taking note of the report, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Jagityal, the 3rd respondent, issued a show cause notice, dated 15.11.2003, requiring the petitioner to explain, as to why surcharge orders be not passed against him, under Section 60 of the Act. W.P.No.26063 of 2003 is filed against it. The writ petition was admitted, on 16.12.2003, and interim suspension was ordered. Not being aware of the interim orders passed by this Court, the 3rd respondent proceeded to pass an order, dated 18.12.2003. W.P.No.196 of 2004 is filed against it. Heard Sri M.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and Sri P.V.Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. The challenge made by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 15.11.2003, cannot be accepted. Except that he made extensive reference to the enquiry report under Section 51 of the Act, the 3rd respondent did not record any definite findings, as to the liability on the part of the petitioner. The plea of the petitioner that the 3rd respondent has already arrived at a conclusion, is devoid of merits. In the surcharge proceedings, the report, which is the result of enquiry under Section 51 of the Act, can no doubt be the basis. However, the Society would be under obligation to prove the allegations independent of that. Hence, W.P.No.26063 of 2003 is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to submit his explanation to the show cause notice within three weeks from today. The 3rd respondent proceeded with the matter, not being aware of the interim order passed by this Court. The petitioner did not submit his explanation, obviously because he obtained an order of interim stay from this Court. Even now, the 3rd respondent can consider the matter on merits, duly taking into account the explanation that may be submitted by the petitioner and by giving opportunity to the Society as well as the petitioner. Hence, W.P.No.196 of 2004 is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.12.2003, is set aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to take up the proceedings under Section 60 of the Act and to pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall appear personally, together with explanation, before the 3rd respondent, on 27.09.2010, and shall appear on subsequent dates that may be fixed by the 3rd respondent, from time to time. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.09.09.2010. Note: Furnish C.C. in one weeks. (B/o) GJ