IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.15886 of 2001 BETWEEN The Vissakoderu PACS Ltd. ... PETITIONER AND Sri D.K. Satyanarayana and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. P.R.K. AMARENDRA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR AGRICULTURE The Court made the following order: ORDER: Petitioner is a cooperative society. It is aggrieved by the order of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada allowing O.A.No.79 of 1999 on 20.11.2000. 2. The said appeal was filed by the first respondent herein, who suffered an enquiry under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act 7 of 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) vide report in R.C.No.1262/95B/D dated 09.08.1996. In the said enquiry report under Section 51 of the Act it was found that the first respondent herein, who was earlier Supervisor of the District Cooperative Central Bank and later Person-in-charge, was found guilty of enhancing the loan limit to at least 8 loanees and disbursing loan to them at enhanced limit, which was detrimental to the society. It was also found that the first respondent acted against the rules rendering him liable for disciplinary action along with other co-employees, who aided and assisted him. The first respondent along with other officers of the society was accordingly held jointly and severally responsible for restoration of the amount of Rs.1,20,000/-, which was excessively disbursed to the loanees. 3. As a consequence of the said report under Section 51 of the Act a surcharge order was passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies against the first respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.1262/95B/D dated 09.10.1996. The basis of the said order, primarily, was the resolution got passed by the first respondent as Person-in-charge of the society on 16.05.1991 enhancing the credit limit of the said 8 loanees from Rs.11,000/- to Rs.15,000/- and disbursing the loans to them on 15.06.1992 at the enhanced limit. The said surcharge order was questioned by the first respondent in appeal, referred to above, before the tribunal. The said appeal was allowed by the tribunal by holding that the first respondent herein cannot be said to be anyway concerned with the disbursing of the loans and on noticing that it is the first respondent, who raised objection to the drawal applications, the findings against the first respondent by the Deputy Registrar in his proceedings dated 09.10.1996 were, therefore, not accepted by the tribunal and were reversed. The said order of the tribunal is questioned in this writ petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The first respondent though served on 23.08.2001, nobody is appearing for him in this writ petition. 5. I find from the record the crucial dates, for fixing the responsibility so far as first respondent is concerned, are as follows: The resolution of the society enhancing the eligibility limit of the 8 borrowers in question was passed on 16.05.1991 and the loans were disbursed on 15.06.1992. As per the order of the Deputy Registrar under Section 60 of the Act dated 09.10.1996 the first respondent worked as Person-in-charge during the period 16.02.1991 to 31.10.1992 whereas as per the tribunal’s order vide para 5 the first respondent acted as Person-in- charge of the society from 21.02.1991 to 26.01.1992. The tribunal records that the aforesaid statement of fact is admitted by the parties. Thus, even if we are to go by the period during which the first respondent worked as Person-in-charge, as stated in para 5 of the tribunal’s order the resolution in question passed on 16.05.1991 was at the instance of the first respondent as per Person-in-charge of the society. 6. I have seen of the copy of the report under Section 51 of the Act, which categorically states that the first respondent, who was at the helm of the affairs along with other officers colluded with the loanees in defrauding the society to the extent of enhanced loan amounts disbursed. On behalf of the loanees, Ch. Bapi Raju and M. Lakshmi Narayana, used to attend the society and are recorded as good friends of the first respondent and other officers. It is, therefore, stated that the first respondent and other officers acted against the rules and rendered themselves liable for disciplinary action and they helped in grant of loans to the loanees of bogus D-form pattas contrary to the circulars issued by the District Cooperative Central Bank. The tribunal has not kept in mind the finding appearing against the first respondent in the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act and merely on the basis of misappreciation of the period during which the first respondent acted as Person-in-charge, has proceeded to hold that there is no material to find involvement of the first respondent herein. The said finding is clearly contrary to the record and in fact, in ignorance of the material on record. 7. The tribunal also proceeded to think that merely because the petitioner society recovered the amounts by obtaining award against the said 8 loanees, the first respondent herein cannot be proceeded against. In my opinion the said aspect of the petitioner society recovering loans is immaterial and does not insulate the first respondent against his culpability as pointed out in the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act against him. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the order of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Section 60 of the Act dated 09.10.1996, referred to above, is restored. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 25, 2010 DSK