High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to C.T.A. No.'12612005 on the file of A.P. Co-operative Tribunal at Hyderabad dated 02.01.2009 confirming the orders of the 1st responddnt passed in his Rc.No.258192-8, dated 29-06-2005 by declaring the same as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, unsustainable and without appreciation of the relevant documents and depositions and to the disadvantage to the petitioner and consequently quash the judgment passed in C.T.A.No.126i2005 on the file of A.P. Co-operative Tribunal at Hyderabad dated 02.A1 .2OOg confirming the orders of the 1st respondent passed in his Rc.No.258/92-8, dated 29.06.2005 --7 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(WPMP. NO: 4260 OF 2009) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including execution of the judgment in C.T.A.No.12612005 on the file of A.P. Co-operative Tribunal at Hyderaba{ dated

02.01:2009 pending drsposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. L. J. VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following: ORDER -7 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTTCE T. MADIIAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No.3269 OF 2009 ORDEIT: This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order dated

02.01 .2009 in C.T.A.No. 126 of 2005 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") at Hvderabad confirming the orders passed by respondent No. I in Rc.No.258/92-B, dated 29.06.2005 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to quash the orders of the Tribunal and also the orders of respondent No. 1 and to pass such other order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner worked as the President of respondent No.2-society from 1987 to 1990 and during the said period, a sum of Rs.l,4O,000l- was withdrawn from the bank and an enquiry under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, "the Act") was ordered into the affairs of respondent No.2-society. Respondent No.1 has passed the surcharge order dated 31.03.1995, holding the petitioner as well as the Ex-branch Manager of the District Cooperative Central Bank, Shantinagar, Mahaboobnagar, responsible lor the misappropriation of the amount and the petitioner t 2 TMD,J w9_.3269 2m9 \ was held responsible for a sum of Rs.70,000/-. Challenging the same, the petitioner liled C.T.A.No.99 of 1995 before the Tribunal and rhe same was initially disposed o1, remanding the matter to respondent No. I and consequently, the fresh surcharge order dated 29.06.20A5 was passed, holding the petitioner as responsible for the cntire sum of Rs. 1,40,0001 wilh an interest of l3%o per annurn front the date of misappropriation till the date of realization of amount and ordered for recovery of the sarre from the petitioner. Challenging the sarne, the petitioner again tiled appeal vide C.T.A.No. 126 of 2005 and the Tribunal has conllrmed the order of respondent No. I and the petitioner in appeal is before this Court by filing this writ petition

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner was that he was jointly responsible for misappropriation of a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/: and initially liability was fastened on thepetitioner for a sum ofRs.70,000/- and on appeal, the matter was remanded for compliance of principles of natural justice and the subsequent order of the Registrar has resulted in holding the entire sum of Rs.1,40,000/- AS responsibility of- the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the petitioner had not gone in appeal. he would have been saddled with a liability of ------7/ .// \ \ 3 IMO,J Wp_3269 2009 Rs.70,000/- only. Leamed counsel further submitted that the petitioner has given a plausible explanation before respondent No. I with regard to the withdrawal of a sum of.Rs. 1,40,000/_ from the bank.

4. Learned Govemment pleader for Cooperation relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit for recovery of Rs.1,40,000/_ from the petitioner.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this court finds that in the surcharge order, the alregation itserf is that the petitioner, being the Ex_president, and the other being Ex_ Branch Manager are jointly responsible for the payment of Rs. 1,40,000/- i.e., each Rs.70,000/_. The explanation ofthe petitioner was not found acceptable and therefore, the respondent No. I found both the petitioner as we, as Ex-Branch Manager as responsible for misappropriation of funds. In the proceedings dated 29.06.2005, respondent No' t held the petitioner responsible for misappropriation of the entire sum of money without there being any allegation to that effect. Therefore, the liability cannot be fixed on the petitioner exceeding the amount mentioned in the show cause notice to the I / I 4 TMD,., Wp 3269 2009 \ surcharge order. With regard to the liability of Rs.70,000/_ also, though leamed counser for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not responsible for the misappropriation of the funds. this court is not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner given befoie respondent No. t that he has withdrawn the money at thc request or advise of the Ilranch Manager. The purpose for which the said amount has been withdrawn or utilized has not been stated in the explanation' Therefore, the surcharge order dated 31.03.rgg5 is upheld and the order dated 29.06.2005 is set aside consequently, the order in C.T.A.No. 126 of 2005 is also set aside. 6 With the alrove observations, the writ petition is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ petition, shall stand closed //rRUE coPY// SD/. P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA / *.o':l:o* ffil[r:-, \l \sEcnoNoFFtcER To '1 \ $ II,g Deputy Reg_rstrar/Divisionat Cooperative OfnceYWanapartny, Mahabubnagar District. 2. The Primary Aqricuttural Cooperative Society (PACS) Rajoli. Viltage, Waddepalli Mahdal, Mahabubnaoar oi.i.i"i-' '' ' '- - 3. One CC to SRt. L J. VE^ERA RE-O_O-V ,AOvocate [OpUC] I-,ir:!; l?.o ffi?I c o o P E RAr I o n, H ibiict-.,,.t- ioi ii,L s tu t" or re r a n g a n a 5. Two CD Copiei BM GJP HIGH COURT DATED:2 410212025 ORDER WP.No.3269 of 2009 -i f: 5 T4 ao( ti: \i? 24 A?t] ijil/l 14, j, !lji \.::: E,.J PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @o{'3W