IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4799 of 2008 Between: Y.V.V.Satyanarayana S/o. Naga Papa Rao Bomminampadu Primary Agricultural Society Ltd., Bomminampadu ( V ), Mudinepalli ( M ), Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Bomminampadu Primary Agricultural Society Ltd.,(No.1376) Bomminampadu, rep. by its President, Bomminampadu ( V ), Mudinepalli ( M ), Keishna District. 2 Assistant Registrar/ sub- divisional Cooperative Officer, Nuzvid, Krishna District. 3 Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Gudivada, Krishna District. 4 Y.Sriramulu S/o. Not known, President, Bomminampadu Primary Agricultural Society Ltd., ( N. 1376), Bomminampadu ( V ), Mudinepalli ( M ), Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the proceedings in Rc.No.1987/2006c dated 2.2.2008 excluding the 4th respondent from his liability of civil and criminal as recommended by the 2nd respondent and also in not fixing the responsibility to the 4th respondent as arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and in violation of principles of natural justice; b) to set aside the orders of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.1987/2006c dated 2.2.2008 and c) to further direct the 3rd respondent to conduct enquiry U/s. 60(1) of A.P. Cooperative Society Act, 1964 strictly in accordance with the report submitted by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.4863/2006c dated 22.12.2007. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.V.PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4799 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is employed as an Accountant in Bomminampadu Primary Agricultural Society Limited, 1st respondent herein. Enquiry under Section 51 of the A.P. Co- operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’), into the functioning of the society, was conducted by the 2nd respondent. A detailed report, dated 31.10.2007, was submitted by the 2nd respondent, pointing out that fraud in relation to a sum of Rs.65,80,822/- was committed and indicated the responsibility, for different items, on various persons, including the petitioner, the Secretary of the Society and the President. On receipt of the report, 3rd respondent initiated surcharge proceedings against the petitioner under Section 60 of the Act. A show cause notice, dated 02.02.2008, is issued to the petitioner. Heavy reliance was placed upon the report submitted by the 2nd respondent. This Writ petition is filed assailing the said show cause notice. It is urged that several facts and figures mentioned in the show cause notice are at variance with the report submitted by the 2nd respondent under Section 51 of the Act. It is stated that the surcharge proceedings are initiated, in such a way, as to absolve the President of the Society and to throw the entire blame on the petitioner and another employee. Heard Sri V.V.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Co- operation. The petitioner intends to challenge the show cause notice issued under sub-Section (1) of Section 60 of the Act. It would have been possible for this Court, to entertain the writ petition, if only any question of jurisdiction is raised or any serious infirmity, touching on the very validity of the proceedings, is pointed out. The grievance of the petitioner is about the correctness and accuracy of the figures mentioned in the Table, which is made part of the show cause notice. These contentions are urged on the basis of the facts and figures mentioned in the report submitted by the 2nd respondent, after conducting the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act. Till a final order is passed under Section 60 of the Act, the allegations made against the petitioner cannot be treated as final. It is always open to a surcharged person even to canvass the correctness of the findings recorded in an enquiry conducted under Section 51 of the Act, in the surcharge proceedings. That being the case, the petitioner can certainly point out the discrepancy between the findings in the report submitted by the 2nd respondent and the present show cause notice. The 3rd respondent would be under obligation to examine the same in detail. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to point out the factual and legal aspects in his explanation, including the one in relation to the report submitted by the 2nd respondent under Section 51 of the Act. The 3rd respondent shall take the same into account, while passing the final orders under Section 60 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 07.03.2008 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. (B/o) JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 4799 of 2008 Date: 07.03.2008 JSU