Heard Mr. C.Aditya, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Assistant Government Pleader for Co-operation.

2. The writ petitioner worked as Secretary of the 3rd respondent – The Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, Salampahad, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad, during the period from 1975 to 1987. While so, during the period from 1.7.1984 to 30.06.1985 there was deficit of stock in the rice, sugar, palm oil, wheat, kerosene, fertilizer and cloth, in the consumer shop run by the society and during the said period, one Rama Goud was the sales man, who worked from 5.3.1983 to 9.4.1985. On 9.4.1995, the said sales man proceeded on leave and though the leave expired on 14.4.1985, he did not return. As there was deficit in stock, the Divisional Co-operative Officer, Bodhan, conducted the enquiry under Section 51 of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) and submitted report dated 31.1.1994, holding that the value of the deficit stock is Rs.33,377-86 and fixed the liability on the petitioner at Rs.16,688-93. Hence, the petitioner was given show cause notice under Section 60 of the Act, calling for his explanation and he submitted report and not being satisfied with the same, the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bodhan, passed surcharge orders under Section 60(1) of the Act on 29.3.1995. Challenging the same, petitioner filed appeal before the Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad under Section 76 of the Act in C.T.A.No.97/1995. By order dated 6.3.1997, the Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh disposal and thereafter, again the petitioner was issued fresh notice under Section 60(1) of the Act and he filed his explanation, denying the liability. As per the remand orders dated 6.3.1997 in C.T.A.NO.97/1995 of the Tribunal, the report of the enquiry officer was placed before the general body, and the said body accepted the report and based on the same, the 2nd respondent – Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, passed the surcharge proceedings in Rc.No.1319/95-D dated 11.6.1998. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal in C.T.A.No.1999/1998 and the Tribunal confirmed the surcharge proceedings passed by the Deputy Registrar by reducing the rate of interest. Now aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was only the Secretary and it is the salesman Rama Goud, who is looking after the affairs and he applied for leave and did not return on its expiry and that he is solely responsible for the deficit. He vehemently contended that before fixing the liability on the petitioner, no evidence was recorded and no opportunity was given to cross-examine the witnesses and without recording the evidence and giving opportunity to the petitioner, fixing the liability on the petitioner, is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He contended that filing of the civil suit is barred and hence the enquiry under surcharge shall be akin to that of civil court and in the present case, 2nd respondent, who passed the surcharge proceedings under Section 60, has concluded that there is no need to record the statement of the petitioner and no independent witnesses were examined, and in the appeal, the Tribunal has held that there is no need to record any evidence and the issue can be decided by hearing the arguments and considering the explanation filed by the delinquent and in support of this conclusion the Tribunal relied on the judgment of this court in BORUSU NAGESHWAR RAO vs. SECRETARY A.P. CO-OP TRIBUNAL, VIJAYAWADA AND OTHERS 2003(4) ALT 220 . He stated that the said judgment was passed while considering the proceeding issued under Section 51 of the Act, and whereas in the present case, the surcharge proceedings were passed under Section 60(1) of the Act and hence the said judgment cannot be relied upon. In support of his contention that before fixing the liability on the petitioner