IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY THE TWENTYFIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO. 9209 OF 2011 Between: Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan s/o Md.Ibrahim Khan Aged about 60 years, Occupation: Business R/o. Flat No. 209, Cana Block, Garden Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. … Petitioner V/s. The Registrar (Vigilance) High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad & 5-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri T. Sharath Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri Bathula Raj Kiran Standing Counsel for APHC Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP for Co-operation Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Sri M. Venkata Divatar The Court made the following : (Order follows next page). THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO. 9209 OF 2011 O R D E R : The third respondent viz., the Prudential Co-operative Bank Limited, Secunderabad filed OP.No. 10 of 2005 in the Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad for recovery of money. The petitioner is one of the respondents. He submitted a complaint to the first respondent-Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of Andhra Pradesh alleging that the evidence adduced (cross examination recorded on 08-07-2009) was tampered with and sought for enquiry. The first respondent forwarded the said complaint to the Chairman of the Tribunal for necessary action. As no action has been taken by the first respondent at the High Court level, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Facts in brief are: During the course of evidence, in the aforesaid OP, the third respondent-Bank examined one B.Satyanarayana Reddy as PW-1, who had filed his examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit sworn on 14-09- 2007. He was recalled for further examination on 30-10-2008 on which date his cross-examination was deferred. PW-1 was again recalled on 08-07- 2009 for cross-examination. Accordingly the petitioner herein cross- examined PW-1 and as there was no further re-examination, the evidence of PW-1 was closed. The cross-examination of PW-1 comprised seven pages. The petitioner states that he applied for a certified copy of the evidence of PW-1 on 19-01-2010 and obtained it on 15-02-2011. Subsequently he found docket entry on 02-11-2010 as follows: “The defence counsel is present and submits that he will cross- examine PW-1 once again as earlier cross-examination is not traced out. Hence call on 08-11-2010”. The petitioner states that the evidence of PW-1 was closed on 08-07-2010 itself. Therefore, PW-1 was neither required for further cross- examination nor was there any request from his side to recall the said witness. Surprisingly, it is noticed that the said cross-examination recorded on 08-07-2009, which comprised seven pages disappeared from the file and in its place the cross-examination, which was conducted on 15-11- 2010 was found in the record. The petitioner states that the original cross- examination has been replaced with fabricated cross-examination conducted on 15-11-2010. On noticing the same, the petitioner gave a representation seeking enquiry to the Presiding Officer of AP Co-operative Tribunal and also to the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of A.P. While the Registrar (Vigilance), High Court of AP gave an endorsement dated 04-03-2011 forwarding the complaint to the Chairman of the Tribunal for appropriate action, the Chairman of the Tribunal did not take any action pursuant thereto. Hence the petitioner filed this writ petition for the aforesaid relief. As the said allegations are very serious, this Court directed the Chairman, A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad to verify and conduct a thorough enquiry and submit a detailed report to the Court. The Chairman accordingly conducted enquiry and submitted a report on 08-06-2011 stating that a Junior Assistant of the Tribunal namely, Mr. P.L.N. Reddy is responsible for the missing of the cross-examination. The Chairman accordingly addressed a letter to the Commissioner for Co- operation with a request to initiate necessary disciplinary action against the said person, as he is under the administrative authority of the Co-operative Department. He sent a reminder dated 27-11-2011. At the hearing of the matter, the learned Government Pleader for Co-operation has placed the proceedings of the Additional Registrar (Services), Office of the Commissioner of Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, dated 01-11-2011 vide Proceedings Rc.No. 21231/2011-ADI initiating action against the aforesaid person by framing necessary charges, and the same is pending. In view of the fact that the enquiry has already been conducted by the Chairman, Co-operative Tribunal and since the disciplinary action has already been initiated against the delinquent, I am of the view that the grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition has been redressed. However, the question that still remains for consideration is, whether the evidence of PW-1 already been recorded shall form part of record in the OP. The third respondent-bank which has filed the counter- affidavit, while admitting that originally PW-1 was cross-examined which material subsequently was not available on the file of Tribunal submits that it has no objection to consider the certified copy of the cross-examination of PW-1 and to declare subsequent cross-examination as null and void. In view of the categorical statement expressing no objection to consider the earlier cross-examination of PW-1, the Tribunal shall proceed with the matter taking the same into consideration by treating the subsequent cross- examination as null and void. 4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI. 21-11-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO. 9209 OF 2011 Circulation No.268 Date:21-11-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43