HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 6591 of 2001 ORDER: The order of the Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in C.T.A.No.31 of 1998, dated 15.02.2001, confirming the order of surcharge passed by the second respondent in R.C.No.46/96-B, dated 19.01.1998, is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The second respondent, in his proceedings dated 19.01.1998 (surcharge order passed under Section 60(1) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’)), held the petitioner guilty of misappropriation of various amounts and, in as much as the said amounts were refunded, he was directed to pay interest of Rs.2,79,369/- (Rs.2,11,258/- + Rs.68,111/-) with further interest at 18% p.a. with effect from 01.04.1996. In appeal, the Tribunal observed that the petitioner had himself admitted that certain amounts were not credited; he had subsequently credited those amounts; merely because the amounts were already paid, and accounted for, it did not absolve him of the liability to regularly remit the amount; the question of examination of any witnesses did not arise since the petitioner who received the notice, having submitted his explanation, did not seek examination of any witnesses; in his explanation, the petitioner had himself admitted about non-remittance of money; his only plea was that, on account of heavy transactions, he could not remit the amount in time, and, therefore, interest should be waived; and he could not be absolved of the liability for making good the payment together with interest. The Tribunal further held that merely because the amount was already deposited by the date of the surcharge notice, it did not absolve the petitioner of his liability, or his committing misappropriation; and the order of the second respondent did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Before this Court, Sri G.V.Shivaji, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that, since the petitioner had failed to credit the amount due to pressure of work and in view of large number of transactions, the respondents were not justified in levying interest; failure on the part of the second respondent to examine two persons (Sri K.J.Prasad and Sri B.Ranga Swamy), to whom the petitioner had disbursed Rs.68,111/- towards arrears of salary, vitiated the surcharge proceedings; and the findings recorded by the first respondent were perverse. With regards non-examination of the two persons referred to above the second respondent, in his proceedings dated 19.01.1998, notes that, as per the Inspection Report under Section 52 of the Act, it was evident that the petitioner had admitted that he did not pay the amount to the persons concerned and had promised to pay back the amount to the Society; it is also evident from the pay bill and acquitance register that the persons concerned viz., Sri K.J.Prasad and Sri B.Ranga Swamy had not signed in token of having received the amount from the petitioner; the explanation of the petitioner was not satisfactory and, therefore, he was liable to pay the said amount of Rs.68,111/- to the Society with further interest at 18% p.a. from 01.04.1996. The findings arrived at by the second respondent is based on the evidence on record i.e. the pay bill and the acquitance register wherein the signatures of the aforesaid two persons are not to be found. The second respondent cannot, therefore, be said to have erred in holding that, in the absence of the signatures of those individuals in the acquitance register in token of having received the amount from the petitioner, it could not be said that they had received the amount. This evidence itself would suffice to hold the petitioner guilty of illegal retention of Rs.68,111/-. If, indeed, the petitioner had paid the said amount of Rs.68,111/- to the two individuals, nothing prevented him from examining them in his defence in the surcharge proceedings. It is also seen from the surcharge order that the petitioner had admitted before the Inspecting Officer that he did not pay the amount to the said persons. The Tribunal, on a detailed analysis of the findings of the second respondent, rightly concluded that the petitioner, having admitted his default, could not contend that the persons to whom he had allegedly had paid the amounts were not examined in the surcharge proceedings. The order under challenge does not suffer from any perversity nor can it be said to be based on no evidence. The second respondent was justified in levying interest at 18% p.a. from the date of defalcation till date. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:25.11.2010 usd