K. VEERA VENKATA SATYANARAYANA, E. G. DISTRICT Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COOP SOCIETIES/DIVISIONAL COOP OFFIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed to issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.2174/96-C, dated 25.06.1997 on the file of the 1st respondent as confirmed in O.A.No.90 of 1997 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Tribunal, Vijayawada by order dated 14.08.2000, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has been working as a Secretary in the 2nd respondent society since 1977. The Audit Special Report dated 29.06.1996 of the Co-operative Sub-Registrar/Auditor, Razole PACCS Group on the accounts of 2nd respondent society for the year 1994- 1995 revealed that the petitioner committed certain financial irregularities, which resulted in ordering enquiry under Section 51 of the Act into the affairs of the 2nd respondent society by the Joint Registrar/District Co-operative Officer, Kakinada. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 12.04.1997. The Enquiry Officer pointed out several irregularities committed by the petitioner and the President of the Society as they caused loss to the Society. In pursuance of the said report, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 14.04.1997. After receiving the explanation of the petitioner submitted on 25.04.1997 and 07.06.1997 to the 1st respondent, the surcharge order dated 25.06.1997 was passed by the 1st respondent under Section 60 of the Act. Against the surcharge order, the petitioner preferred O.A.No.90 of 1997 before the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Tribunal, Vijayawada and the said appeal was dismissed by order dated 14.08.2000. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) The grounds raised in this writ petition are that the petitioner has debited cash book for an amount of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- under head blue print charges and he spent the amount for effecting repairs to the building of the society and the same could not be said to be without permission from the Registrar. He cannot be held liable for mere not obtaining permission and the amounts cannot be shown as misappropriation. Though he raised several grounds with regard to the validity of the charges, the Tribunal did not consider the same in its proper perspective. He has repaid the amounts shown in the charges.