HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION NO:12996 OF 2000 DATED:19.8.2010. Between: P. Naga Mohana Rao …Petitioner And: 1. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Machilipatnam Division, Machilipatnam and others. …Respondents. This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION NO:12996 OF 2000 ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the 3rd respondent dated 5.5.2000. The case of the petitioner reads as follows: He was appointed as a Clerk on 1.7.1975 in the 3rd respondent- society and subsequently, he was promoted to the post of accountant on 17.12.1990 by the 2nd respondent. While he was working as accountant in the 3rd respondent-society, there was a fire accident, which took place on 22.3.1991, as a result of which, records pertaining to the society were burnt. He was on medical leave from 20.3.1991. While so, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 27.12.1991 keeping him under suspension alleging that he committed several irregularities and he was held responsible for burnt of the books. The 2nd respondent issued a charge sheet dated 18.12.1992, for which the petitioner submitted his written explanation on 22.9.1993 denying the charges leveled against him and the 1st respondent without giving proper opportunity, by his proceedings dated 9.10.1993 while exercising powers under Section 60 of the A.P.C.S. Act held that the petitioner, Sri Mamilla Rao, Ex.President, Sri M. Rama Chandra Rao, the then Secretary are jointly and severally responsible for misappropriation of Rs.7589.10 ps., with interest at 18% p.a., from 21.3.1991 till the date of realization. The 1st respondent again on the same date i.e., 9.10.1993 issued another proceedings while exercising his powers under section 60 of the Act holding that the petitioner and K. Subrahmanayeswara Rao, Ex.President of the 3rd respondent are responsible for misappropriation of Rs.5,36,792.95 ps., and directed them to pay the said amount jointly and severally together at 18% p.a., interest from 21.3.1991 till the date of realization. On that, the petitioner filed W.P.No.19192 of 1993, which was disposed of setting aside the said proceedings and remanding the matter for fresh enquiry and disposal after affording reasonable opportunity. The 1st respondent again issued a notice on 23.2.1994 to him. In response to the said notice, the petitioner addressed several letters to the 1st respondent with a request to serve the inspection report said to have been submitted by the Inspecting officer about the misappropriation of the society funds, but there was no response. Hence, the petitioner filed WP No.4696 of 1994 questioning the surcharge notice dated 23.2.1994 and the said WP was disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to furnish the copy of the Inspection report. Accordingly, the 1st respondent furnished a copy of the Inspection report and issued a notice to him and he submitted his explanation and requested the 1st respondent to supply relevant and other material which are crucial for his explanation and that the 1st respondent without giving proper opportunity and in an arbitrary manner while exercising his powers, issued surcharge proceedings dated 7.7.1994 confirming his earlier stand. The said action of the 1st respondent is questioned before the Co-operative Tribunal, Vijayawada in O.A.No.253 of 1994. Meanwhile, the enquiry was conducted and the 2nd respondent passed an order confirming the charges leveled against the petitioner and terminating his services. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3166 of 2000 and the same was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy is available. Hence, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Directors. But they rejected the appeal. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that by proceedings dated 5.5.2000, the appeal was rejected by the appellate authority-Board of Directors and that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing by the appellate authority and it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. The impugned order goes to show that no notice has been given to the petitioner and the appeal has been rejected on the ground that they did not find any reason to entertain the appeal. Therefore, I find some force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. In view of the fact that no opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner and in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the principles of natural justice, the order impugned can be set aside and the matter can be remanded to the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 5.5.2000 and remanding the matter to the 3rd respondent to pass fresh orders in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner herein. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent has expressed a doubt as to the existence of the society. In view of the above submission, it is made clear that if the society is not in existence, the authority, who is incharge of the society, shall afford an opportunity to the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law. ________________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari Date:19.08.2010 NN HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION NO:12996 OF 2000 DATE:19.8.2010.