P. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, J.

( 1 ) ). THE Civil Revision Petition is posted before us on a reference made by the learned single Judge for an authoritative pronouncement on the point :"whether Section 60 contemplates a detailed enquiry into the truth or otherwise of the alleged acts of misfeasance and willing negligence committed by the delinquent person before the Dy. Registrar passes an order of Surcharge; or whether a valid surcharge order can be passed without conducting any such detailed enquiry, but on a consideration of the audit report or inspection report submitted in pursuance of the earlier audit or inspection of the accounts or records of the concerned society and after giving an opportunity to the delinquent person to explain his conduct. "

( 2 ) ). The Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order of the Appellate tribunal under the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964-cum-District Munsif passed in C. M. A. No. 1 of 1990.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is the Ex-President; while Pydi Rama Rao is the Ex- secretary of Dhariwada Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society. During the course of inspection, under Section 52 of the Co-operative Societies Act - hereinafter called " the Act ", into the affairs of the Society, it was noticed that the petitioner and the Ex-Secretary have caused deficiency to the Society to the tune of Rs. 20,310-50 Ps. by breach of trust and wilful negligence. Basing on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative societies, issued show-cause notice to the petitioner and the Ex-Secretary, as to why the said amount should not be recovered from them. The petitioner did not submit his explanation; while the Ex-Secretary in his explanation stated that he has not misused the funds of the Society, and he has taken the signatures and thumb impressions of the persons on surety bonds, Loan Disbursement statement, Ledger and Cash Book and distributed the amount to the loanees.

( 4 ) ). On the basis of the material available on record, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies by his proceedings dated 19-8-1989 found that the petitioner and the Ex-Secretary are responsible for causing loss to the Society in a sum of Rs. 20,310-50 Ps. and accordingly fixed the liability of the petitioner at Rs. 11,004-25 Ps. payable with interest at 15 per cent from surcharge notice dated 27-3-1985 till realisation. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed c. M. A. No. 1 of 1990 before the Appellate Tribunal under the Act. The appellate Tribunal confirmed the said order on 30-4-1992. Hence the revision.

( 5 ) THE appellate Tribunal found that some witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Officer and their statements were also recorded; and the Enquiry officer found that the petitioner and the Ex-Secretary forged the signatures and thumb impressions of some of the loanees and drew amounts from the society and misappropriated. After the show-cause notice was issued on 27-3-1985, petitioner requested for time to submit his explanation. He engaged an Advocate, but he did not choose to submit his explanation, but went on taking time till 22-11-1988. The appellate Tribunal found that the petitioner was given notice more than once to show cause why order under Section 60 of the Act shall not be passed. No explanation was submitted by the petitioner, and on 22-11-1988 the request for further time was rejected. The contention of the petitioner, however, is that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses or adduce evidence denying his liability. The argument of the petitioner is based on the Proviso to Section 60 of the Act which says that no order shall be passed against any person referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 60 unless he has been given an opportunity of making his representation. The same argument was advanced before the learned single judge who found that there is conflict of opinion on this point, and accordingly, referred the matter to a Division Ben

Click Here to Read the rest of this document