IMPORTANT POINT
Inquiries under Sections 51 and 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act are distinct and can be conducted independently without nullifying previous inquiries.

ORDER :

(Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.) :

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief/s:

“…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by calling the records on the file of the AP Co-operative Tribunal at Vijayawada, in O.A. No.40 of 2011 dated 02.06.2014, conforming the surcharge orders in RC.No.673/2005/B dated 15.10.2008 of the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of the APCS Act 1964, violation of Article 14 & 21 of Constitution of India, Quash the same and to pass such other order or orders …..

2. The present Writ Petition is filed by one Seeta Rama Swamy, who is ex-president of Primary Agricultural Society, Rangapuram (hereinafter called as Society), assailing the order in O.A. No.40/2011, dated 02.06.2014.

3. The unnecessary facts are shorn off and the relevant facts are that the petitioner herein was elected as Chairman of Rangapuram Society for the period from 1995 to 2002. An enquiry was initiated under Section 52 of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on 27.08.2002, against the Society and appointed Sub- Divisional Cooperation Officer, Chintalapudi, as Inspecting Officer. The Inspecting Officer conducted detailed enquiry and submitted a report to the District Cooperative Officer, Eluru, by pointing out certain irregularities had been committed by the then Secretary and Salesman/Attender by name V.B.V.S.S. Anjaneya Sastry. The Enquiry Officer did not find fault against the petitioner and no allegations made against him in the enquiry report. The enquiry officer recommended for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,46,745/- from the Secretary and Rs.25,125/- from the Salesman. Basing on the enquiry report, the Rangapuram Society, filed surcharge proceedings No.6/2002-03 for issuance of surcharge order under Section 60(1) of the Act, against the individuals.

4. During the pendency of the proceedings, a petition under order 1 Rule 10 is filed to implead the petitioner as one of the party to the surcharge proceedings by making certain irrelevant and untenable allegations. The 2nd respondent without considering the contentions raised in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner herein, allowed the said petition by an order dated 12.05.2005. Assailing the same, the petitioner herein filed the Writ Petition No.14744 of 2005 and the said Writ Petition was allowed and the Order dated 12.05.2005 was set aside by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, vide order dated 07.12.2006 and however, it is observed in the order that “it will not preclude the authorities from conducting any other enquiry as per law against the petitioner and proceed with the matter”.

5. Pending disposal of the aforesaid Writ Petition, the 2nd respondent-The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Eluru has initiated an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act and appointed an enquiry officer for the very same allegations, for which an enquiry was already conducted under Section 52 of the Act and an enquiry report was submitted. Without finalizing the surcharge proceedings or without accepting or rejecting the enquiry report submitted to the 2nd respondent against earlier inspection conducted under Section 52 of the Act and conducted under Section 51 of the Act.

6. Against the report, surcharge proceedings were initiated against the petitioner herein and the same was assailed in O.A. No.40 of 2011, on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal at Vijayawada. Learned Tribunal has dismissed the O.A. with the observation that the allegations against the appellant (writ petitioner) have been proved, accordingly, the 1st respondent has passed surcharge order against the appellant and Secretary basing upon the reasons assigned by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies considering the surcharge orders and dismissed the ap