2017 Supreme(AP) 111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A. Ramalingeswara Rao, J.
K. Satyanarayana and Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
The A.P. Cooperative Tribunal and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 22815, 22828 and 22829 of 2009
Decided On : 05-01-2017

Headnote:

Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 - Section 60, 51, 60(1), 50, Section 52 or Section 53, 9, 29, 30(2)(x), 31-A, 35, 36, 37, 47, 50, 51, 55-A., 59 and 60 - petitioner in W.P. No. 22815 of 2009 and the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 22828 and 22829 of 2009 were working as the employees of the District Co-operative Central Bank Limited Branch - Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 in are the legal heirs who was also the employee of the same bank and who died during the pendency of the proceedings - Proceedings were taken against them before the second respondent pursuant to an enquiry conducted under Section of the Act into the affairs of the third respondent Society - Petitioners submitted their explanation stating that they were not employees of the Co-operative Society they were not entrusted with the duties of the Society and proceedings cannot be taken against them - When an order of surcharge was passed the petitioners filed before the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Tribunal and the Tribunal by its orders set aside the orders of surcharge passed by the second respondent and remanded the matter back to the second respondent for conducting a fresh enquiry - Fresh notices were issued to the employees of the Society as well as employees of the bank - After recording the statements of the delinquents, elaborate orders were passed by the second respondent - Plea taken by the petitioners that the duties and responsibilities discharged by them do not come under the provisions of Section of the Act and the notices issued to them were beyond the jurisdiction of the second respondent was negatived - Against the said orders the petitioners filed O.As before the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Tribunal – Held, Counsel for the petitioners that in order to attract Section 60 of the Act there must be a loss occasioned to the bank and the loss caused to the Society cannot be a cause of action for proceeding against the employees of the bank like the petitioners herein - He further submitted that though the wording employed in Section of the Act is not satisfactory since the ultimate order passed by the concerned authority in proceedings under Section of the Act results in fixing the liability, the provisions must be strictly construed - Co-operative Society only - Though the job chart of the employees of the Co-operative Central Bank include scrutiny of loan applications submitted by the Society any failure in the discharge of their duties would not attract an action under Section 60 of the Act - Petitioners along with the President and Secretary of the Society the petitioners stand on a different footing in view of the nature of duties undertaken by them as employees of the Bank - Primary responsibility for the irregularities committed in the affairs of the society rests on the office bearers of the Society and the employees working therein - Employees of the bank are connected in the process of sanction of the loans and the bank itself is a Society no action can be taken against the employees of another Society - Writ Petitions are allowed.