The petitioner is a Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, functioning at Karimnagar. The 1st respondent was functioning as Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, in the Cooperative Department of the Government of A.P., in the year 1994. He was appointed as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the petitioner-Bank, on deputation, with effect from 08-06-1994, and he held that position till 26-03-1996. Enquiry under Section 51 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act (for short ‘the Act’) was conducted into the affairs of the bank, covering the period, during which the 1st respondent functioned as CEO. In a report submitted in September, 1997, several irregularities were pointed out, and it was alleged that a sum of Rs.85,000/-of the funds of the petitioner, were misappropriated. Taking the same into account, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Karimnagar, the 3rd respondent herein, initiated surcharge proceedings under Section 60 of the Act. Through an order, dated 23-11-1998, the 3rd respondent fixed the liability of the petitioner at Rs.2,15,201-50 ps. On the one hand, the 1st respondent filed C.T.A.No.194 of 1999 before the Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad, under Section 76 of the Act and on the other hand, he moved the Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the 4th respondent, under Section 77 of the Act, against the report of enquiry, submitted in September, 1997. The 4th respondent passed an order dated 22-01-1999, observing that the findings in proceedings under Section 60 of the Act are to be based on independent evidence, and the 1st respondent can urge all the grounds, including the defects, if any, in the report under Section 51 of the Act, before the authority under Section 60. Not satisfied with that, the 1st respondent made a further revision to the Government, the 6th respondent. Through order dated 30-07-1999, the 6th respondent remanded the matter to the 4th respondent, once again. On such remand, the 4th respondent passed an order dated 09-11-2000, holding that the report submitted under Section 51 of the Act, pointing out irregularities on the part of the 1st respondent; is vitiated.

On the other front, the Tribunal allowed the C.T.A.No.194 of 1999 through its order dated 03-08-2000, mainly on the ground that the 1st respondent was not given an opportunity to lead independent evidence in the surcharge proceedings, and remanded the matter to the 3rd respondent. On such remand, the 3rd respondent took note of the order dated 09-11-2000, passed by the 4th respondent and closed the proceedings.

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 09-11-2000, passed by the 4th respondent and the order dated 28-11-2000, passed by the 3rd respondent.

Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the revision filed by the 1st respondent against the report filed under Section 51 of the Act was untenable and that by resorting to gross misuse of legal process, he got the entire proceedings terminated. He contends that a report under Section 51 of the Act does not have any independent existence and at the most, it would give rise to the initiation of surcharge proceedings.

The contest to the writ petition is mainly by the 1st respondent. His counsel, Sri D.Linga Rao, submits that Section 77 of the Act provides for a remedy of revision, wherever, an appeal is not maintainable against an order or proceedings issued under the Act. He contends that the 4th respondent has taken the view that the observations made in the enquiry report under Section 51 of the Act, are untenable and with that, the very basis for the proceedings under Section 60 of the Act ceased to exist. Learned counsel submits that the orders challenged in the writ petition are passed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and that no exception can be taken to them.

The enquiry conducted under Section 51 of the Act into the affairs of the petitioner-bank revealed certain irregularities. Accor