IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.12756 OF 2002 Dt.10.2.2010 Between: Kadavakollu Nageswar Rao … Petitioner And The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies Machilipatnam, Krishna District and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.12756 OF 2002 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash proceedings dt.27.5.1999 of respondent No.1, which were confirmed by order dt.07.1.2002 in O.A. No.110 of 2000 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada. The petitioner is Ex-President of Mandapakala Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Mandapakala (for short, “the Society”). On the allegation that during his tenure as President between 1992-93 and 1994-95, he and the Secretary of the Society committed misappropriation of amounts to the tune of Rs.13,067/-, enquiry under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, “the Act”) was instituted. After giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner and the Secretary, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dt.25.4.1997 whereunder the Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner and the Secretary failed to produce proper evidence of the alleged expenditure to the tune of Rs.13,067/-. Based on the said report, proceedings under Section 60(1) of the Act were initiated. By order dt.27.5.1999 respondent No.1 directed recovery of a sum of Rs.11,717/- from the petitioner and the former Secretary of the Society by making them liable to pay the said amount jointly and severally along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. The petitioner questioned the said order by way of an appeal which was registered as O.A. No.110 of 2000 on the file of the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri K. Ravi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as the petitioner ceased to be the President of the Society and the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act was initiated only after expiry of the petitioner’s term as President, he cannot be held responsible for missing vouchers pertaining to the expenditure incurred on behalf of the Society. I have carefully considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of order dt.27.5.1999 passed by respondent No.1 shows that the following amounts were debited to the Society’s account. Rs. P. “On 28-6-93 Wages paid for preparation of ‘C’ Form to Sri K. Srinivasa Rao 700-00 30-6-93 Subsidy paid to members 6517-00 30-9-93 General body expenses 4500-00 31-1-94 RR. Photostat Demand list 1350-00” In the proceedings under Section 60 of the Act, respondent No.1 re-examined the entire issue in the light of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and he found vouchers to an extent of Rs.1,350/- pertaining to item No.4 mentioned above. Respondent No.1 had given a categorical finding that neither the petitioner nor the Ex-Secretary were able to satisfy that the expenditure debited to the Society’s account in respect of rest of the three items was supported by proper vouchers. On the strength of this finding of fact, respondent No.1 has held the petitioner and the Ex-Secretary jointly and severally responsible for payment of the amounts covered by the said three items. The Appellate Tribunal having considered the enquiry report and the surcharge order passed by respondent No.1, dismissed the appeal. As regards the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner’s term as President has expired, he cannot be held responsible for non-production of the vouchers, I do not find any merit in this submission. Being the President of the society, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to maintain proper accounts and ensure that expenditure incurred is supported by proper receipts and vouchers. Even if the petitioner’s term had expired before the initiation of the enquiry, that cannot be a ground for the petitioner to evade his responsibility. It is not the case of the petitioner that he maintained the vouchers and that his successors in office have misplaced them. The very fact that in respect of item No.4 pertaining to an expenditure of Rs.1,350/-, the vouchers were found at the stage of proceedings under Section 60 of the Act, itself shows that the enquiry proceedings were conducted in a fair and transparent manner. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the surcharge order passed by respondent No.1 as confirmed by the Cooperative Tribunal. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P. No.15849 of 2002 filed by the petitioner is also dismissed. ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10.2.2010 bnr