Allowed

P. Rajagopal v. The Divisional Cooperative Officer

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Nov 2023WP/8278/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a Surcharge order of Rs.2,00,542 passed under Section 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, on the ground that it was passed without calling for a representation from the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

What did the court decide?

Surcharge Order dated 18.08.2003 set aside and Writ Petition allowed.

P. Rajagopal Vs The Divisional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH NUNEPALLY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.8278 of 2004

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The present Writ Petition has filed for the following relief:

¶5

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the recordings relating to the impugned proceedings Rc.No.1840/2000-D, dated 18.08.2003 and all consequential proceedings relating thereto on the file of the 1^st respondents and quash the same as the same are illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of A.P.C.S. Act and violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to the judgment of this Hon’ble Court and to pass…”

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Coorporation.

¶7

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Surcharge order, dated 18.08.2003 whereby, the petitioner is held accountable for recovery of Rs.2,00,542/along with interest.

¶8

The case of the petitioner is that the respondent has

¶9

not conducted any enquiry and arrived at a conclusion that

¶10

¶11

the petitioner is liable for payment of Rs.2,00,542/- with interest.

¶12

It is a certain case of the petitioner that Section 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 contemplates that the person concerned has to be given an opportunity of making a representation. As seen from the Surcharge Order, dated 18.08.2003 the said order was passed on findings and recommendations of the Inspection Officer. There appears to be no reasons accorded in the said order. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment in Challa Sanyasinaidu vs . The Dy. Registrar of Coop. Society, Srikakulam, whereby this Court had considered the issue similar to the present said facts and circumstances and set aside the orders passed under Section 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964.

¶13

Counter is filed by the respondents however, apart from the said Surcharge Order and stating that the petitioner is liable for payment of Rs.2,00,542/- nothing else is stated. No annexures or a detailed enquiry report is placed on record.

¶14

¶15