A. GOPAL REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE facts relevant for the decision of this writ petition are in a short compass.

( 2 ) THE petitioner while working as Assistant Secretary, Pulikundaram PACS, the Senior Inspector of Audit, Puttur has conducted final audit of Pulikundaram PACS of Pitchatoor branch for the years 1992-93; 1993-94 and 1994-95 and submitted a special report alleging misappropriation of funds by the Secretary and the Ex-President of the Society. On receipt of the said report the District Co-operative Officer -R3 authorised the Extention Officer (Rural Development), Pitchatoor to conduct inspection under Section 52 of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (Act 7/64), who is turn after inspection submitted his report stating that the petitioner has misappropriated an amount of Rs. 2,12,178. 96 ps. and thereby caused loss to the Society -1. By decreasing the cash balance; 2. Amounts collected and not remitted to the Society and 3. Created unnecessary advances, falsification of records etc. , and recommended for talking civil and criminal action by detailing the misappropriation. He also fixed the responsibility on T. Veeraraghavulu, Secretary for Rs. 73,786. 50 ps. and N. Mannachi Raju, Ex-President for Rs. 4,000. 00. Basing upon the said report a surcharge notice dated 9-9-1998 under Section 60 of the Act 7/64 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The petitioner on receipt of the above surcharge notice requested one-month time for submitting his explanation on 1-10-1998. Even after expiry of the said period, the petitioner has not chosen to submit his explanation. Therefore, surcharge order dated 14-5-1999 was issued, which is impugned in the present writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a letter to the 2nd respondent, who is turn by notice dated 23-6-1999 directed the petitioner and the Secretary - 1st respondent to appear before him on 29-6-1999 with connected records such as cash book, loan ledgers, vouchers, receipt book, minutes book etc. , relating to the period 1992-1993 to 1994-1995 and also the records relating to special report and inspection report under Section 52 of the Act for his verification about the genuineness. The Secretary neither attended the enquiry nor produced any records, but directed the petitioner to remit the amount specified in the surcharge order dated 14-5-1999. On failing the petitioner to deposit the amount the 1st respondent filed EP 27 of 1999-2000 on the file of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Tirupathi.

( 3 ) THE 2nd respondent filed a counter admitting all the above facts and further stated that at the time of visit of the then Divisional Co-operative Officer, Tirupathi to Pitchatoor basing upon the representation of the petitioner that he has not committed any misappropriation of funds of the Society and requested to re-examine the records issued a notice dated 23-6-1999 requesting the Secretary to be present before him along with records. Due to pre-occupation, with regard to collection of Short Term loans, he has not produced the relevant records. But later the Divisional Co-operative Officer transferred and the deponent was transferred in his place. Once surcharge order was issued by the Deputy Registrar, he has no power to reopen or to review the same, which was issued basing upon the inspection under Section 52 of the Act, and the same has to be recovered as per the procedure contemplated under the Act. The petitioner s remedy, if any, is to file an appeal against the said order, but the 2nd respondent cannot review the same.

( 4 ) THE 1st respondent filed a separate counter in similar lines.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions :1. Once the 2nd respondent reopened the case for further enquiry and called upon the Secretary to produce the records, no coercive steps can be taken under the surcharge order passed earlier. 2. The ear

Click Here to Read the rest of this document