B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition prays for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari by calling for the entire records leading to passing of Re. No. 6279/98-D dated 8. 10. 1991 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as against law. without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was elected as an Honorary Secretary of the second respondent. The Telecommunication Employees Co-operative Credit Society ltd. , Ananthapur in the elections held on 16. 10. 1985 and continued in that position for a period of three years upto 15. 10. 1988. The first respondent in his proceedings dated 28. 2. 1990 ordered for inspection of the second respondent Society under Section 52 of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short the Act ). Obviously a report has been submitted by the inspecting Officer on 23. 4. 1990 to the first respondent herein pointing out certain irregularities and fixing the responsibility on the petitioner. Basing on the said inspection report dated 23. 4. 1990, the first respondent had issued show- cause notice dated 25. 8. 1990 directing the petitioner to show- cause as to why the petitioner should not be surcharged under Section 60 of the act.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is stated to have filed a representation before the first respondent, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ananthapur on 14. 11. 1990 requesting him for supply a copy of the inspection report and also permission to peruse the records. The inspection report was directed to be supplied to the petitioner on 4. 12. 1990 by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative societies on payment of required fee. Time was extended to represent his case till 17. 12. 1990. The proceedings were personally received by the petitioner on 11. 12. 1990. The petitioner is stated to have submitted another representation seeking permission to peruse the records in detail along with an Advocate and also for granting one month time to submit his explanation for show-cause notice. This representation was received by the first respondent on 18. 12. 1990. Permission was accordingly granted to the petitioner by proceedings dated 26. 12. 1990 by the first respondent to peruse the records in the office of the Society and in the presence of the Part-time person-in-charge of the Society. The petitioner was permitted to peruse the records before 10. 1. 1991 and file his written objections if any against the proposed action on or before 15. 1. 1991. The intimation sent under the Registered post returned by the postal authorities with an endorsement that the petitioner was absent continuously for seven days. Then through the proceedings dated 23. 1. 1991 the Assistant Engineer, Office of the Telecom Dist. Manager, ananthapur, under whose jurisdiction the petitioner was working, was requested to serve a copy of the same. Time for filing the explanation was again extended upto 25. 2. 1991. The petitioner through his representation dated 15. 2. 1991 informed the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Ananthapur that the office of the second respondent Society was locked and no person-in-charge was present at the sent of the society, when he went there. However, proceedings dated 25. 2. 1991 was again made available to him and the time was extended upto 8. 3. 1991 for submitting his reply to the notice after perusing the records, and all the records that were obtained from the second respondent were kept in the office of the Divisional Co- operative officer, Ananthapur to enable the petitioner to peruse the records of any working day before 30. 6. 1991 and time was again extended for filing his objections, if any, before 30. 6. 1991. The said proceedings were received by the petitioner and the petitioner failed to submit his representation.

( 4 ) HAVING waited for a period of about one year from the date of issuance of the show-cause notice, final orders of surcharge were passed by the first respondent on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document