THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition Nos. 5106, 5081 and 5078 of 2008 Dated: 20.09.2010 Writ Petition No. 5106 of 2008 Between: Rangampeta Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, East Godavari District. … Petitioner And V.V.V.S.Chjowdary, East Godavari District and 2 others. … Respondents Writ Petition Nos. 5081 of 2008 Between: Rangampeta Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, East Godavari District. … Petitioner And Mallimoggala Satyanarayana, East Godavari District and another. … Respondents Writ Petition Nos. 5078 of 2008 Rangampeta Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, East Godavari District. … Petitioner And Mallimoggala Satyanarayana, East Godavari District and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.5106 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION No.5081 OF 2008 AND WRIT PETITION No.5078 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER : Rangampeta Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Rangampeta Village and Mandal, E.G. District is the petitioner in all the three writ petitions, in which the orders passed by the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, thereby setting aside the surcharge orders passed under Section 60 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’) Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Peddapuram, are under challenge. The 1st respondent in W.P.No.5106 of 2008 was the Ex- President of the petitioner society. Alleging that he had signed the vouchers towards vehicle loan advanced to the 3rd respondent without there being any resolution passed by the Managing Committee and without approval of the competent authority, a statutory inquiry under Section 51 of the Act was held and on the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the Deputy Registrar of Co- operative Societies, having initiated the surcharge proceedings under Section 60 of the Act passed an order dated 30.04.2005 for recovery of Rs.25,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st respondent preferred O.A.No.15 of 2006 before the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and the same was allowed by order dated 30.03.2007 holding that the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies had not conducted an independent enquiry which is a condition precedent under Section 60 of the Act and that the surcharge order was merely based upon the enquiry report. Accordingly, the surcharge order dated 30.04.2005 was set aside. The said order of the Tribunal, dated 30.03.2007 is under challenge in W.P.No.5106 of 2008. The 1st respondent in W.P.No.5081 of 2008 and W.P.No.5078 of 2008 is the Ex-Secretary of the petitioner society. During the course of the audit for the year 2002-2003 of the society, some irregularities and misappropriation of funds were detected. Basing on the audit report, surcharge proceedings were initiated under Section 60 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act for recovery of the loss caused to the society. By separate orders dated 31.5.2006 ordered recovery of Rs.25,943/- and Rs.59,584/-. Aggrieved by the said orders, the 1st respondent filed O.A.No.23 of 2007 and O.A.No.24 of 2007 in the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal Visakhapatnam. The said appeals were allowed by separate orders dated 10.04.2007 on the ground that the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies failed to conduct an independent enquiry and that the surcharge orders were passed merely on the basis of the Audit report. The said orders of the Tribunal, dated 10.4.2007 are challenged in W.P.No.5081 of 2008 and W.P.No.5078 of 2008 respectively. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Having regard to the admitted fact that the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies did not conduct an independent enquiry, the Tribunal below while relying upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in CHALLA SANYASI NAIDU v. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, SRIKAKULAM[1] held that the surcharge orders under Appeal were illegal and accordingly set aside the surcharge orders. In view of the settled legal position as laid down by this Court in CHALLA SANYASI NAIDU’S case (1 supra) the conclusion of the Tribunal below cannot be found fault with. However, having set aside the surcharge orders on the ground that no independent enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 60 of the Act, the Tribunal below ought to have remanded the matters for fresh consideration by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. As rightly contended on behalf of the petitioners, the Tribunal below was not justified in totally exonerating the respondent No.1 since the same is not in public interest. Accordingly, the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.15 of 2006, O.A.No.23 of 2007 and O.A.No.24 of 2007 are modified directing fresh enquiry by the Deputy Registrar of Co- operative Societies under Section 60 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act in Rc.No.406/2001-D(4), Rc.No.511/2006-F and Rc.No.2844/2006-F following due process of law. The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of with a direction that the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies shall make a fresh enquiry following due process of law and pass appropriate orders as provided under Section 60 of the Act. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 20.09.2010 KLP [1] 1998 (1) ALT 482