1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. The petitioner worked as a Secretary of the 2nd respondent-society and there were allegations against him. An enquiry under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') was initiated. Basing on the report of the said enquiry, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner holding the petitioner was liable for an amount of Rs. 1,44,237/- and he was asked to file his objections. Accordingly, he filed his objections denying his liability. It is the case of the petitioner that without conducting any enquiry, relying on the findings of the enquiry report submitted under Section 51 of the Act, the 1st respondent passed an order on 17.07.1999 holding him liable for the above amount. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 158 of 1999 before the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Vijayawada (for short 'the Tribunal') and it confirmed the order of the 1st respondent by order dated 18.10.2003. Challenging the same, the present writ petition was filed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no enquiry was conducted by the 1st respondent and basing on the report submitted under Section 51 of the Act by the enquiry officer, an order was passed by the 1st respondent holding the petitioner liable and hence, the order as confirmed by the order of the Cooperative Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that due opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his explanation and after providing such opportunity, the order was passed by the 1st respondent and hence, the principles of natural justice are not violated.

4. The petitioner was working as Secretary in the 2nd respondent-society and during the year 1997, it was alleged that he misappropriated an amount of Rs. 1,44,237/-. The District Co-operative Officer, Krishna, Machilipatnam, ordered for an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act by appointing an enquiry officer. He submitted a report against the petitioner stating that he misappropriated an amount of Rs. 1,15,766-74 ps and criminal proceedings were also taken against him in C.C. No. 5 of 2000 before the Special Court under the Act at Vijayawada, wherein he was acquitted on 18.10.2001. As many as ten charges were alleged against the petitioner and the petitioner was held liable by the 1st respondent in his order dated 17.7.1999. A reading of the said order discloses that no enquiry was conducted and the said order was based on the report of the enquiry officer submitted under Section 51 of the Act. When the petitioner preferred an appeal before the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal, Vijayawada, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

"(i) Whether the first respondent provided sufficient opportunity to the appellant in the surcharge enquiry and followed the principles of natural justice?

(ii) Whether the witnesses examined in the original case as well as surcharge enquiry spoke the true facts?

(iii) Whether the appellant is liable to pay the surcharge amount?

(iv) Whether the surcharge is liable to be set aside?"

5. Before the Tribunal, Exs. A. 1 to A. 12 and Exs. R. 1 to R. 6 were marked. The Tribunal held all the points against the petitioner.

6. With regard to the first point, the Tribunal held that the petitioner took nine months time to file his written statement and he filed detailed written objections to the notice by the 1st respondent. With regard to the examination of witnesses, it was stated that necessary evidence was recorded in Section 51 enquiry in detail and further held that if any evidence on the side of the petitioner was necessary, he should have requested the 1st respondent to examine the witnesses produced by him, but he did not choose to examine anybody. The decisions cited by the petitioner reported in S. Rama Sabba Rao vs. President, Kaikaluru Irrigation and Power Department Sub-Divisional Em