K. Ramadas v. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative

This writ petition is filed for a writ of Certiorari to quash judgment dated 07.04.2001 in CTA.No.242 of 1997 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby order dated 17.09.1997 of respondent No.1 has been confirmed. The petitioner was a paid employee of respondent No.3 society (for short, ‘the Society’). A statutory inspection was held under Section 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, ‘the Act’) into the affairs of the Society on the order of respondent No.2. The Inspecting Officer conducted inspection and submitted his report on 28.11.1996. According to the said inspection report, the petitioner misappropriated an amount of Rs.85,33360 paise under the following heads.

A) Retention of Cash balance .. Rs. 21,200-00 B) Alteration of challan from 54,000-00 Rs.6,000/- to Rs.60,000/- .. Rs.

As per the Final Audit Reports .. Rs. 6,217-00 1991-92 and 1992-93.

Interest charged on retention .. Rs. 3,916-00 of cash balance. ------------------- - Total .. Rs. 85,333-60 ------------------- - On the basis of the inspection report, respondent No.1 issued notice dated 30.07.1997 under Section 60(1) of the Act. The petitioner filed his explanation and thereafter respondent No.1 recorded the oral evidence and passed order dated 17.09.1997. In his order, he held that the petitioner is liable to pay the sum of Rs.85,333=60 paise. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed CTA.No.242 of 1997 before the Tribunal, which, by its order dated 07.04.2001, dismissed the said appeal. At the hearing, Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity and respondent No.1 failed to supply the inspection report and depositions recorded by the inspecting authority. He submitted that though this issue was specifically raised before the Tribunal, the latter failed to consider the same and gave a finding thereon. I have carefully considered this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has not filed a copy of his explanation given to the notice issued by respondent No.1 after completing the enquiry under Section 52 of the Act and before passing the order. Therefore, it is not possible for this Court to appreciate the contention of the petitioner that he was denied a reasonable opportunity. The petitioner also failed to file the grounds of appeal. However, the Tribunal in its order extracted the grounds of appeal at page 5. In ground No.1, the petitioner contended that respondent No.1 failed to conduct an independent enquiry by giving an opportunity to him before passing the impugned order. The said ground is too generic and vague, which does not support the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.1 failed to furnish a copy of inspection report and depositions. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is categorically averred that the petitioner was provided with adequate opportunity at the time of conducting inspection under Section 52 and supplied with enquiry report under acknowledgement dated 26.03.1997 and that after receiving all the documents including the inspection report dated

28.11.1996, the petitioner appeared before respondent No.1 and gave his deposition. I have therefore no reason to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was denied an opportunity to defend himself in the proceedings before respondent No.1. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that at the hearing contention were advanced on behalf of the petitioner before the Tribunal that no full- fledged enquiry was conducted and no opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses was given to elicit proof in all respects as required under Section 60(1) of the Act and that respondent No.1, while initiating the surcharge proceedings, has not supplied the copies of enquiry report, statements of witnesses recorded during the enquiry and that there was clear violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal, however, did not give specific findings on these contentions. In my considered opinion, in view of failure of the petitioner to produce any material to show that at any point of the completion of surcharge proceedings, he raised any grievance regarding non- supply of the said material, his contention, raised obviously for the first time at the time of oral hearing before the Tribunal, is required to be considered only as a pure after thought. If the petitioner was really handicapped by non-supply of the said material, he should have certainly raised his objections before respondent No.1 and produced evidence of raising such objections before the Tribunal and also this Court. In the face of the assertion in the counter affidavit that all the material were supplied, I am of the view that this contention cannot be countenanced. Having perused the findings given by the Tribunal, I am of the view that the order does not call for any interference as the same is based on the findings of fact recorded both in the inspection report and also the order passed by respondent No.2 in the proceedings issued under Section 60(1) of the Act. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. Date: 10.09.2008 ES ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J