ORDER:

This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:-

“….to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly the 3rd respondent in initiating surcharge proceedings under Sec.60 of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 in his R.C.No.644/2013-B dated 28.08.2015 against the petitioner as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, biased and without any basis, reason and beyond the scope and ambit of Sec.60 of the Act and consequently set aside the proceedings in R.C.No.644/2013-B dated

28.08.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent ..”

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the petitioner was working as a clerk in the District Cooperative Central Bank, Badvel Branch, he was promoted as Branch Manager on 01.07.2009 and worked there till 01.06.2011; thereafter the petitioner was transferred to Lakkireddipalli Branch on 01.11.2013 and again transferred to District Cooperative Central Bank, Kadapa head office and he has retired from service as Branch Manager on attaining age of superannuation on 30.06.2014. While so, after the retirement of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent ordered inquiry under Section 51 of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 [for short ‘the Act’] into the constitution, management, working and other irregularities in financial commitments of Brahmanapalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society of Gopavaram Mandal, Y.S.R. District. The 2nd respondent after receipt of the Inquiry Report under Sec 51 of the Act with respect to Brahmanapalli Primary Agricultural Coop. Society, authorized the 3rd respondent to initiate action under Section 60 of the Act against the petitioner. Consequently the 3rd respondent had initiated surcharge proceedings vide R.C.No.644/2013-B dated 28.08.2015 against the petitioner under Section 60 of the Act calling upon the petitioner, to appear before the 3rd respondent at the seat of Brahmanapalli PACS, Gopavaram on 15.09.2015 and directed the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why action shall not be initiated against him under Section 60 of the Act to recover Rs.7,38,635/- as fixed by the Inquiry Officer under Sec.51 of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioner has appeared before the 3rd respondent on 15.09.2015 and sought 30 days time for verification of records since it is surprising that such a surcharge notice was issued after the petitioner’s retirement from service. The 3rd respondent vide proceedings in R.C.No.644/2013-B dated 26.09.2015 was pleased to grant 30 days time for verification of books of records of Brahmanapalli PACS as well as books of Accounts at District Cooperative Central Bank, Badvel.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the Act does not contemplate initiation of surcharge proceedings against the employees other than the employees of the society against which an inquiry report under Section 51 is made. Even as per Section 60 of the Act, the surcharge proceedings can be initiated only against the person who is or was entrusted with the organization, affairs or management of the society or any past or present officer or servant of the society, who has misappropriated or fraudulently retained any money or other property or has been guilty of breach of trust in relation to the society or has caused any deficiency in the assets of the society by breach of trust or willful negligence or has made any payment contrary to the provisions of this Act where it appears during the course of an audit under Section 50 or an inquiry under Section 51 or an inspection under Section 52 or Section 53, to the winding up of a society, such misappropriation or fraudulent retaining of any money or any other property or has been guilty of breach of trust or has made any payment contrary to the provisions of this Act. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he is no way concerned with Brahmanapalli PACS and was not entrusted with the organiz