Allowed

K.V. Narayana Reddy, v. The Deputy Registrar of Coop. Societies

Telangana HC11 Apr 2016WP/2602/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition challenging surcharge proceedings and confirmation order for violating natural justice. It held that witnesses were not examined and the petitioner denied cross-examination opportunity, setting aside orders and remitting the matter.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside and matter remanded to the surcharge authority for fresh consideration with due opportunity to the petitioner within three months.

K.V. Narayana Reddy, Vs The Deputy… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT WRIT PETITION No.2602 of 2006

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard Sri K.Pavan, counsel for petitioner, the Assistant Government Pleader for 1^st respondent and Sri E.Satyanarayana for respondents 2 and 3.

¶4

The petitioner challenges proceedings Rc.No.90/2000-B, dated 12-10-2001 and confirmation order in CTA No.43 of 2003, dated 15-02-2005 as illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.

¶5

On 04-04-2016, the writ petition was heard in great detail and learned counsel have made several submissions on the merits of the matter including the similarity of circumstances between the instant writ petition and W.P.No.2603 of 2006, which was disposed of on 0401-2007. To enable Sri Satyanarayana to get instructions on the initiation of proceedings under Section 60 of the A.P.Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) and that there is any similarity in the facts and circumstances of both the matters, the matter underwent two adjournments and today, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 fairly submits that the proceedings impugned in the instant writ petition and W.P.No.2603 of 2006 emanate from the same, file but in respect of two distinct transactions. He further fairly states that the objections raised in the instant writ petition and the objections raised in W.P.No.2603 of 2006 are substantially one and the same. The operative portion of order dated 0401-2007 reads as follows:-

¶6

“It is an admitted fact that no documents were marked including the enquiry officer’s report and no witnesses who purported to have given evidence during the course of enquiry under Section 51 of the

¶7

Act were examined before the surcharge authority. The surcharge authority, simply on the basis of enquiry report as well as the written statement, disposed of the case, which was confirmed by the appellate authority.

¶8

In this regard, the learned counsel for petitioner drawn attention of the Court to the judgment in CHALLA SANYASINAIDU v. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COOP. SOCIETY, SRIKAKULAM [ 1 ] and submitted that this is a glaring example where principles of natural justice were given a gobye and no enquiry known to law has been conducted either by the surcharge authority or appellate authority, therefore, both the orders are liable to be set aside.

¶9

I am in full agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for petitioner. This is a case where the witnesses who purported to have deposed before the Enquiry Officer, were not examined before the surcharge authority and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to crossexamine them and the entire evidence was recorded behind the back of the petitioner. Unless the persons who deposed before the enquiry under Section 51 of the Act are examined in Section 60 proceedings, their statements cannot form basis to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges.Therefore, the impugned orders are vitiated by law, procedure and principles of natural justice.

¶10

Therefore, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the surcharge authority (first respondent) dated 12.10.2001 as confirmed by the appellate authority (A.P. Cooperative Tribunal) in C.T.A.NO.9 of 2003 dated 15.12.2005 are liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent-surcharge authority for fresh consideration of the matter after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and passing appropriate orders as per law.

¶11

The writ petition is accordingly allowed.”

¶12

Having regard to above circumstances, without considering the merits of the writ petition, I am satisfied

¶13

that the orders impugned in the writ petition are set aside on the short ground that the copy of enquiry report under Section 51 of the Act is not given to petitioner, matter is remanded to 1^st respondent for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law.

¶14

A statement is made by the Assistant Government Pleader that 1^st respondent will consider and dispose of the proceedings pending under Section 60 of the Act in both the matters within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

The statement is accepted and accordingly 1^st respondent is directed to complete the enquiry in accordance with law, after remand in both the matters and pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded as stated above. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶17

S.V.BHATT, J Date: 11-04-2016 Prv

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.2602 of 2006

¶20

Dated 11-04-2016

¶21

Prv

K.V. Narayana Reddy, v. The Deputy Registrar of Coop. Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.V. Narayana Reddy, v. The Deputy Registrar of Coop. Societies

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.N.Somayajulu Vs The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies

G. Ravi Vs The Commissioner, Endowments Department of A.P.

Videocon Industries Ltd., (Erstwhile Videocon International Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh,. Rep. by its

Kumari M. Sneha Priya Vs Dr. N.T.R.UNiversity of Health Sciences

Byreddy Kondal Reddy, Vs The Commissioner for Cooperation and

Attenthi Yesuratnam Vs Kondepi Venugopala Rao