Back
1998 Supreme(AP) 295
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : N.Y.HANUMANTHAPPA, V.BHASKARA RAO
Kolluri Bhaskara Rao - Appellant
Versus
Dy.Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Guldivade, Krishna Dist - Respondent
Decided On : 04-24-98
Headnote:
A. P. Cooperative Societies Act - Sections 52 and 60 - Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Seeking for a direction to declare proceedings - Null and void - challenge - Previously he worked as Supervisor in respondent society from to covering societies and holding Additional charge as Secretary between - Due to heavy work load work had been divided by Managing Committee and President of Society and one was entrusted with collection of amounts issue of receipts sale of fertilisers to maintain cash and ledger books daily whereas one was entrusted with maintenance of stock sale of cloth etc - Accordingly a resolution was passed by respondent to that effect - While so he came to know about certain irregularities in June and accordingly brought same to notice of authorities - Petitioner also intimated same to Divisional Co-operative Officer under a resolution requesting to make statutory enquiry in irregularities - Consequently Senior Inspector conducted an enquiry and submitted his report to Divisional Co-operative Officer - According to petitioner said enquiry was not conducted properly and Enquiry Officer relied on bye-laws of other societies without referring to resolution of society and work distribution arrangement made earlier with approval of President - Whether in complaint made is there any deprivation of fundamental right of a citizen or whether order complained of is illegal or unlawful or violation of any statute or order complained of suffers from non-compliance of principles of natural justice or grave injustice or injury has been caused to person who has approached this Court - Admitted are that petitioners are employees of respective societies - Held, Fixing up financial responsibilities a detailed enquiry should be under Section 60 of Co-operative Societies Act - Tribunal failed to appreciate contention of petitioner that due enquiry as contemplated in law was not and erroneously fixing liability on petitioner - Petitioner was given sufficient opportunity and it is only after hearing petitioner and considering his objections impugned proceedings were issued duly following procedure laid down in law - management did not supply material to petitioners which was basis for management to initiate proceedings in question -They also contended that during enquiry no opportunity of either adducing evidence of hearing has been given to them - Same contentions were raised before tribunal - Tribunal found that orders passed by Co-operative Authorities fixing liability on petitioners based on proper appreciation of evidence - Tribunal being an appellate authority again went through entire material and found that there is no illegality or irregularity in orders passed by authorities fixing liability on petitioners - Findings given by tribunal are on reappreciation of evidence and consideration of all contentions which were raised by petitioners - Tribunal and Co-operative authorities serutinised material properly and reached correct conclusion fixing liability on petitioners - Court direct petitioners in both writ petitions to pay amount ordered to be due from them with interest in eight equal installments with a single default clause - First installment commencing from First July - Writ Petitions Dismissed
( 2 ) WP No. 8830/89 was filed by one Kothuri Bhaskara Rao seeking for a direction to declare the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Re N0. 2914/84-B, dated 18-1-1988 as confirmed by the Co-operative Tribunal, Gudivada (2nd respondent) in CMA No. 2/85, dated 19-4-1989 as illegal, null and void and contrary to the provisions of the A. P. Cooperative Societies Act. Whereas WP No. 13589/91 was filed by one Ch. Prasada Rao seeking for a similar direction to declare the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in Re. No. 4453/83-A, dated 16-11-1989 as confirmed by the 1st respondent in CMA No. 4/90, dated 5-12-1990 as null and void.
( 3 ) A few facts that are necessary to dispose of the writ petitions are as follows : The petitioner in WP No. 8830/89 is a clerk in Krishna District Co-operative Central Bank, Machilipatnam. Previously he worked as Supervisor in the 2nd respondent society from 29-6-1977 to 9-8-1982 covering 11 societies and holding Additional charge as Secretary between 14-5-1983 and 9-8-1994. Due to heavy work load, the work had been divided by the Managing Committee and the President of the Society and one Mr. Sri Reddy was entrusted with collection of amounts, issue of receipts, sale of fertilisers, to maintain cash and ledger books daily, whereas one G. P, Brahmam was entrusted with the maintenance of stock, sale of cloth etc. , and, accordingly, a resolution was passed by the 2nd respondent on 16-1-1981 to that effect. While so, he came to know about certain irregularities in June, 1984 and on 10-6-1984 and accordingly brought the same to the notice of the authorities. The petitioner also intimated the same to the Divisional Co-operative Officer on 23-6-1984 under a resolution dated 20-6-1984 requesting to make statutory enquiry in the irregularities. Consequently the Senior Inspector (Fanning) Gudivada,conducted an enquiry and submitted his report to the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Gudivada. According to the petitioner the said enquiry was not conducted properly and the Enquiry Officer relied on bye-laws of other societies without referring to the resolution of the society dated 16-11-1981 and the work distribution arrangement made earlier with the approval of the President. The Enquiry Officer held in his report that "even though during the course of enquiry a particular person who is responsible for committing the fraud is not established I have fixed up the responsibility on the basis of the duties and responsibilities" and thus holding, fixed the total amount of misappropriation of Rs. 49,680. 50ps. Basing on the said report, the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice under Section 60 of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act purporting to issue surcharge orders against the petitioner. The petitioner submits that the said notice is vague and no specific charges have been framed. The petitioner filed objections to the said notice before the 1st respondent on 16-6-1986. The petitioner alleged that the 1st respondent did not conduct any enquiry into the issue of surcharge but solely relied on the enquiry report conducted under Section 52 of the Act which is contrary to law. He further submitted that no evidence was recorded nor any issues were framed by the 1st respondent and without giving sufficient opportunity, the impugned order was passed holding that the petitioner and K. Sri Reddy arc jointly responsible for an amount of Rs. 15,354. 00 The petitioner alleged that no enquiry as contemplated under Section 60 of the Cooperative Societies Act was held and time and again the Courts including a Division Bench of this Court in WA Nos. 55/87 and 56/87 held that before fixing up financial responsibilities a detailed enquiry should be held under Section 60 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the contention of the petitioner that due enquiry as contemplated in la
