THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R.DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NOS.388 AND 1005 OF 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) These two Writ Appeals arise out of common order dated 12.11.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.21741 and 22255 of 2007 respectively, whereby he, while allowing W.P. No.22255 of 2007, dismissed W.P.No.21741 of 2007. The facts have already been recorded by the learned Single Judge in the order under appeals. Therefore, they need not be referred to in detail. It will suffice to note that the appellant in both these appeals is the Ex-President of Sri Mallidi Tirupayyagari Venkata Reddy Cooperative Rural Bank Limited, East Godavari District (for short “the Bank”). On the basis of serious irregularities and allegations of fraud, an enquiry under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short “the Act”) was ordered by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. After a thorough enquiry, a detailed enquiry report was submitted by the Sub-Divisional Cooperative Officer, Amalapuram under Section 51 of the Act. A cursory perusal of the said report reveals that findings of fraud on the part of the appellant were rendered by the Enquiry Officer in the said report. Purporting to act on the said report, proceedings under Section 61 of the Act were initiated by the Secretary of the Bank before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies against the Ex-President; members of the Managing Committee and wife of the Ex-Secretary of the Bank. An award was passed on 28.05.2005 by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, which was challenged by the appellant; Managing Committee members and the wife of the Ex-Secretary by filing separate O.As before the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal at Visakhapatnam (for short “the Tribunal”) under Section 73 of the Act. The Tribunal passed separate but identical orders, whereby the award passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies was set aside. The main ground on which the award was set aside was that the initiation of proceedings under Section 61 of the Act was not legal and proper. Questioning the said awards, the Bank filed W.P.Nos.22255; 22269 and 22445 of 2007, while the appellant filed W.P.No.21741 of 2007 to the extent he was aggrieved by non-raising of attachment of his properties, despite the Tribunal allowing his appeal. The learned Single Judge, in his order under appeal, found that the Tribunal made a superficial approach in giving a clean chit to the appellant without proper examination of the enquiry report. The learned Single Judge also found fault with the approach of the Tribunal in going into the merits regarding the involvement of the appellant when it found that the very initiation of proceedings under Section 61 of the Act itself was not proper and correct and that instead proceedings under Section 60 of the Act should have been initiated against the Ex-President and the members of the Managing Committee, while proceedings under Section 61 of the Act would have been appropriate only in respect of the legal heirs of the Ex-Secretary. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge gave the following directions. (a) The Writ Petition Nos.22255, 22445 and 22269 of 2007 are allowed. The orders challenged therein are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, directing that surcharge proceedings under Section 60 of the Act shall be initiated against the Ex-President, the former President and the Members of the Managing Committee of the Society, who in turn, shall be named specifically. Writ Petition No.21741 of 2007 is dismissed. (b) Proceedings under Section 61 of the Act shall be initiated against the legal representatives of the Ex- Secretary of the Society. (c)The attachment of the properties of the Ex-President shall be remain in force, till the disposal of the proceedings. (d) Since the authority to adjudicate the matter, and the allegations in both the matters are one and the same, it is directed that the procedure prescribed under Section 61 of the Act shall be followed in respect of both the sets of proceedings. At the hearing, Sri S.R.Sanku, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal has given a clean chit to the appellant and therefore, there was no justification in not raising the attachment order. In our considered view, there is no merit in this submission of the learned counsel. As noted earlier, the Enquiry Officer, in his report, impeached the Ex-President. However, the said report is required to be considered in the proceedings to be initiated under Section 60 of the Act, wherein an appropriate opportunity will be given to the appellant to meet those findings. The learned Single Judge, in our view, rightly found that the appropriate procedure that ought to have been followed was not followed, because the logical consequence of submission of a report under Section 51 of the Act would be to initiate proceedings under Section 60 of the Act to fix the responsibility on the persons against whom findings were given by the Enquiry Officer, in his report submitted under Section 51 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge gave the above mentioned directions. Inasmuch as strong findings were rendered against the appellant by the Enquiry Office in his report, we do not find any legal error in the order of the learned Single Judge in not raising the attachment of the properties of the appellant. For the above mentioned reasons, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is assailed in these Writ Appeals. The Writ Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. _______________________ ANIL R.DAVE, CJ Dated 5th August, 2009 _________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J vrn