(1.) The petitioner is a Paid Secretary of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Kazipuram since 22-9-1992. By the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 22-2-1993, the petitioner was kept under suspension on certain grounds of alleged mis-appropriation of funds during the tenure the petitioner functioned as Secretary of Holagunda Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society. The same, however, was questioned by filingawritpetition. Weare, however, not concerned with the said action ofplacing the petitioner under suspension in these proceedings. In the instant case the petitioner has questioned the proceedings Rc.No.1418/93-L, dated 11-11-1994 whereby the Divisional Co-operative Officer - 3rd respondent herein has been requested to file a criminal case against the petitioner for alleged mis-appropriation of funds during his tenure of service with Holagunda Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society. The said proceedings dated 11 -11 -1994 of the District Collector - 1 st respondent herein are questioned in the above writ petition.
(2.) Sri A. Satya Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned proceedings have been passed by the District Collector according permission for prosecution of the petitioner, solely on the report of the Inspecting Officer under Section 52 ofthe A.P.Co-operative Societies Act. It was the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the said enquiry ispolitically motivated and suffers from the vice of violation of principles of natural justice as the inspection under Section 52 has been done behind the back of the petitioner and the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard before authorising the launch of prosecution against the petitioner. It was further contended that the alleged Inspection Report under Section 52 of the Act was not served on the petitioner and in any case if any action is warranted based upon the said inspection report, then proceedings have to be initiated under Section 60 of the A.P.Co-operative Societies Act and the question of initiation of criminal prosecution based on the inspection report is wholly unwarranted and without jurisdiction.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended that launching of prosecution based upon an Inspection under Section 52 of the Act would be violative of Article 20(2) on the Doctrine of Double Jeopardy. The petitioner will be subjected to a criminal trial apart from sur-charge proceedings under Section 60 of the Co-operative Societies Act on the same allegations.