IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.10726 of 2005 Date: 30th September, 2010 Between: Vedula Nageswara Rao .. Petitioner And The Divisional Cooperative Officer, Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Parvathipuram and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.10726 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to quash the order passed by the first respondent under Section 60(1) of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 in R.C.No.3043/84-C dated 28.2.2004 Under the impugned surcharge order, petitioner along with others were directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,14,296/- to the funds of Parvathipuram PACS with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of occurrence till the date of realization. It is the case of the petitioner that he was the Ex-President of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (PACS), Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram district. While that being so, on a complaint made against the Directors of the society as to misappropriation and creation of benami loans, an enquiry under Section 51 of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) was ordered and in the said enquiry, it was found that the petitioner and four others misappropriated the funds of the society by creating benami loans for a sum of Rs.1,14,296/-. Basing on the report of the enquiry officer, the first respondent vide order dated 2.8.1997 initiated surcharge proceedings against the petitioner and four others levying the said amount of Rs.1,14,296/- to be restored to the funds of society with interest @ 18% per annum. Questioning the said order, petitioner filed O.A.No.155 of 1997 before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada. The other persons have also filed O.A.Nos.133 and 136 of 1997. The Cooperative Tribunal, allowed the said O.As. by setting aside the impugned proceedings therein by a common order dated 17.2.2000 and remanded the matter to the first respondent with a direction to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of the order as per the guidelines mentioned therein. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 4.9.2003 and accordingly he filed a memo on 28.4.2003 seeking to provide an opportunity to cross- examine the enquiry officer. Petitioner also filed written explanation requesting the first respondent to provide him an opportunity to cross- examine the enquiry officer, but the first respondent did not accede to the request of the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated 28.2.2004. Hence this writ petition. The respondents have filed counter stating that the petitioner was furnished with all the documents. But insofar as his plea that he requested the first respondent to permit him to cross-examine the enquiry officer, the counter is silent. Whereas in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, petitioner asserted that though he wanted to cross-examine the enquiry officer, he was not given the opportunity. Therefore, I am of the view that the remand order passed by the Cooperative Tribunal directing the first respondent to dispose of the matter by giving opportunity to the petitioner was not carried out properly and the petitioner was not given opportunity to cross-examine the enquiry officer and on this ground alone, the impugned order dated 28.2.2004 is liable to be set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the first respondent directing him to dispose of the matter afresh, permitting the petitioner to cross-examine the enquiry officer and permit all the parties to lead evidence, both oral and documentary. The amounts deposited shall lie to the account of the society till a decision is taken by the primary authority. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 30.9.2010 DA