P. YERRAM NAIDU, J.

( 1 ) WRIT petitioner, had moved this Court questioning the surcharge order issued by 1st respondent in proceedings Rc. No. 882/ 94-B, dated 31-12-1996 for surcharging an amount of Rs. 9,692/- from the petitioner along with interest which is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Section 51 of the A. P. Cooperative societies Act, 1964, hereinafter in short referred to as "act" for the purpose of convenience, and violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to provide all the necessary documents to the petitioner on which the authorities relied and to pass such other suitable orders.

( 2 ) SRI Siva Prasad, the learned counsel representing the petitioner would contend that the report was not placed before the General Body as per Section 51 of the Act and the said provision being mandatory, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel also would submit that no doubt initially interim suspension was granted but subsequent thereto by virtue of modification the entire amount was directed to be deposited and the writ petitioner had already deposited the amount. The learned Counsel also would submit that though several representations were made for several of the documents, the relevant documents were not supplied nor proper and reasonable opportunity had been given to the writ petitioner and on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice also, the writ petitioner is bound to succeed. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment made by the Special Court wherein on the self-same charges acquittal had been recorded. The Counsel would point out that the charges being same, in view of the acquittal recorded by the Criminal Court, the surcharge proceedings cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions in this regard.

( 3 ) ON the contrary, the learned government Pleader for Co-operation would contend that proper procedure had been complied with. The learned Government pleader also would contend that placing the enquiry report before the General Body of the society is only for the purpose of intimation and the said provision cannot be said to be mandatory. The learned government Pleader also would submit that the writ petitioner is entitled to alternative remedy and hence on this ground also the writ petitioner is bound to fail.

( 4 ) HEARD the Counsel.

( 5 ) THE writ petitioner was appointed as a Paid Secretary in Primary Agricultural co-operative Society, Arasavelli in the year 1978 by the then Cadre Committee. Subsequent thereto, the Government issued g. O. Ms. No. 454 dated 13-9-1985 decategorising the societies basing on turnover of the business. The Secretaries were allotted to the decategorised societies basing on the qualifications, experience and option of societies by the Secretaries concerned and the powers are vested with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for allotment of secretaries to the societies. Subsequent thereto powers were delegated to the District collector for allotment of the Secretaries. Accordingly, Secretaries were allotted to the decategorised societies as per the procedure contemplated in the Act and the petitioner was allotted to Arasavelli Primary agricultural Co-operative Society by the then District Collector on 30-6-1990 and the petitioner joined in the above said Society on 1-8-1990. It is stated that the authorities inspected the society periodically and found that the President and Secretary of the society had committed several irregularities and the matter was brought to the notice of the higher authorities. The District Cooperative officer ordered inspection under Section 52 of the Act. The Inspecting officer detected several irregularities committed by the President while inspecting the records of the Society. The President of the Society brought pressure on the authorities for changing of the Inspec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document