THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.5593 of 2010 ORDER The petitioner is employed as Assistant Manager in the Tandur Mahila Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Tandur. In the course of inspection to the accounts of the Bank, certain deficiency in cash balance to the extent of Rs.36,47,450/- was noticed. Stating that the petitioner and other staff of the Bank admitted that they are responsible for the deficiency and have admitted their complicity in writing, the respondent herein, who was functioning as person in- charge, issued a notice, dated 04.03.2010, calling upon the petitioner to deposit the said amount. Reiterating the same, the respondent issued a letter, dated 08.03.2010, requiring the petitioner to deposit the amount by 10.03.2010. He further stated that if the petitioner fails to comply with the same, criminal proceedings would be initiated. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said notice and filed the present writ petition. He contends that the letter, which is said to have constituted the basis for the notice, was obtained by coercion. He states that the amount to the tune of Rs.7.5 lakhs deposited with the Bank is withheld and he is subjected to harassment. The respondent filed a counter affidavit. He contends that the petitioner being the Assistant Manager was responsible for the irregularities pointed out in the notice. He submits that the petitioner himself admitted his guilt and he is now going back on his written commitment. It is also urged that the petitioner did not turn up for the duties for the past 11 months. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation. The petitioner is required to deposit a sum of Rs.7.5 lakhs on the basis of his alleged admission. The notice, by itself does not determine the liability of the petitioner. Though it is stated that the petitioner admitted that he is responsible, along with other employees for such cash irregularities, once he disowns such commitment or admission, the alternative for the respondent is to initiate surcharge proceedings under Section 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act or/and to initiate prosecution. In its present form, the impugned notice cannot be enforced in law. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned notice is set aside. It is left upon to the respondent to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date:13.12.2010 sj