HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.NO.8293 OF 2002 Dt.19.8.2010 Between: N.S.V.Subba Rao ..Petitioner And The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Bhimavaram and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.NO.8293 OF 2002 ORDER: Petitioner questions the order passed by the A.P.Co- operative Tribunal, Vijayawada in O.A.No.13 of 2008, dated 25.8.2001, confirming the surcharge order of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bhimavaram, under Section 60 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act 7 of 1964 (for short, the Act) in Rc.No.898/98-B/D(S.IV), dated 24.7.1999. The petitioner was the President of the 3rd respondent Mrutyunjaya Cooperative Rural Bank Limited @ Achanta Cooperative Rural Bank Limited, Achanta, West Godavari District. The Board of Management of the 3rd respondent bank authorizes the petitioner being the President and Vice President to operate all the accounts jointly with the Secretary of the bank. The petitioner has to observe and ensure that the cheques signed by him are properly accounted for in the records of the bank or not and he is not supposed to sign on blank cheques without purpose. The details written on the counterfoil should tally with the contents of the cheque, otherwise he could not sign the cheque. That being the legal obligation, it is stated that the petitioner issued a cheque No.613818 on 26.9.1996 for Rs.28,000/- in the name of NFCL as evident from the counterfoil. But, the petitioner signed blank cheque counter signed by the Secretary and handed over the same to T.K.Subrahmanyam. On the same day the transaction was recorded in the cash book showing that the amount paid to M/s.NFCL and the amount was written on the same day. The said transaction was recorded in the cash book showing that the amount was paid to M/s.NFCL, Kakinada. But, the said amount was encashed by the clerk T.K.Subrahmanyam. Similarly, another cheque No.0820438 dated 15.10.1996 for a sum of Rs.18,000/- was issued in the name of Shawallace and Company, Vijayawada, as per the counterfoil. Thus, both the cheques were not reached their destination, but the cheques were encashed by T.K.Subrahmanyam in the State Bank of India, Tanuku and Vysya Bank, Tanuku and misappropriated the same. Therefore, an enquiry was conducted and pursuant to the show cause notice the petitioner did not file any objections, but the said Subrahmanyam and G.Ramachandra Rao, ex- Secretary filed their objections and after considering the explanations, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies passed the surcharge order dated 24.7.1999 holding that an amount of Rs.46,000/- (Rs.28,000/- + Rs.18,000/-) along with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of transaction shall be recoverable from the petitioner and two others. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal in O.A.No.13 of 2000 before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada and the Tribunal by order dated 25.8.2001 dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioner along with two others is responsible for causing loss to the bank and the surcharge order was passed after giving reasonable opportunity. Questioning the same, this writ petition is filed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though the said cheques were signed to be given for M/s.NFCL, Kakinada and M/s.Shawallace Company Limited, Vijayawada for a specific purpose, but the blank cheques were given to Subrahmanyam so as to enable him to draw the cash and obtain demand drafts and give the same to the said two companies and therefore it cannot be said that the amount was misappropriated and the petitioner caused loss to the bank is unbelievable. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am unable to accept the said contentions. I am of the opinion that the said amount was misappropriated and the petitioner is not supposed to sign blank cheques except for specific purpose. If that be so, the counterfoils and the cash book ought to have been reflected that the cheques were given for obtaining demand drafts. But the counterfoils and cashbook clearly indicate that the cheques were given for a particular purpose. Therefore, I do not see any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 19.8.2010 kpr