S. Ramadas Vs. the Subordinate Judge and Others

S. Ramadas vs The Subordinate Judge and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Jul 09, 1992

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/423400

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/423400
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: Subhashan Reddy, J.
Decided On: Jul 09, 1992
Case Number: Writ Petn. No. 18960 of 1988
Subject: Trusts and Societies

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Trusts and Societies - surcharge proceedings - Sections 60, 51 and 121 of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and Article 14 of Constitution of India - co operative society sought to proceed against delinquent manager for realization of loss suffered by his negligence - surcharge proceedings under Section 60 start...

Key legal issue: Trusts and Societies
Acts & sections: Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 - Sections 51, 60 and 121; Constitution of India, Article - 14

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

S. Ramadas

Advocate M/s. Koka Raghava Rao, ;Kum. G. Rohini and ;S. Kishore, Advs.

Respondent

The Subordinate Judge and Others

Advocate G.P. for Co-operation and ;Mr. S. Venkata Reddy, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 - Sections 51, 60 and 121; Constitution of India, Article - 14
Reported In: AIR1993AP6; 1992(3)ALT50

Excerpt

.....can be statutory or contractual. is for the insurance company to show that the insurance policy was a statutory policy and not a contractual policy to restrict its liability. that issue was neither raised before the tribunal nor is raised in this appeal requiring decision. thus, if at all the insurer has any valid ground to restrict its liability, it can proceed against the insured but firstly it has to discharge the award as required under section 149 (1) of the act. where the owner/insured has failed to maintain the vehicle as per prescribed safety standards and has caused the claimant to drive the vehicle with mechanical defects, the owner would be the tortfeasor and the claimant can maintain a petition seeking compensation under the provisions of the act, instead of seeking compensation under the workmens compensation act. on facts, held, the material evidence on record, particularly, with regard to the income of the claimant, his age, medical evidence and the evidence relating to pecuniary loss has not been considered by the tribunal in the correct perspective, which has resulted in passing of the impugned award, disproportionate to the pecuniary loss and the loss of future income of the victim. the settled principles governing determination of compensation has been given a go-bye. compensation of rs.4,15,150/- awarded by the tribunal was enhanced to rs.8,20,000/-. .....the act, no independent enquiry was conducted under s. 60 so as to make the petitioner liable for the enforcement of the surcharge order. it is pertinent to mention that enquiry under s. 51 of the act is only an administrative enquiry for the satisfaction of the registrar as to whether under s. 60 surcharge proceedings have to be initiated or not. once the proceedings under s.60 of the act are initiated, the enquiry thereof should be akin to civil court enquiry as the civil court's jurisdiction is barred expressly in view of s. 12! of the act. as no independent enquiry has been conducted by the second respondent herein to pass a decree for realisation of the amount, the said order is not only an infraction of the statutory provisions, but also violative of the principles of natural justice. that apart, the iniliation of proceedings under s. 60 are hopelessly time barred. it is curious to note that the petitioner was on deputation for the period from 10-12-1965 to 25-7-1967, allegations were levelled against him with regard to the dereliction of duties for the above said period. the peti-lioner was repatriated on 25-7-1967, promoted as a tahsildar during the year 1975 and had also retired from service with effect from 30-11-1978. admittedly, a show cause notice was issued for the first time under s. 60 of the act and served on the petitioner only on 27-8-1980. by no stretch of imagination can the authorities be permitted to sleep over the matter that long and then initiate proceedings, that too, penal in nature, at their sweet will and pleasure and as and when they want. even according to the society, because of the long lapse of time, most of the records were not traceable. for the reasons that no independent enquiry which ought to be conducted by the second respondent was not conducted in exercise of his powers under sec. 60 of the act and that the surcharge proceedings under sec. 60 of the act were initiated at a much belated stage, that too, after the.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. This is a peculiar case where a retired Tahsildar who was hitherto holding the post of Deputy Tahsildar and was deputed as Manager, Girijan Primary Co-operative Society, Bhadrachalam, is sought to be proceeded against for realisation of the amount by invoking the provisions contained under Sec. 60 of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 ('the Act' for short). Some allegations are levelled against the petitioner who held the post of Manager mentioned supra for the period from 10-12-1965 to 25-7-1967, that either he has not remitted some amount or that there were acts of dereliction of duty on his part and consequently the Society suffered monetary loss to the tune of Rs. 59,830.39 ps. The same was appealed against before the Co-operative Tribunal (Subordinate Judge, Kothagudem) in C.T.A. Xo. 3 of 1982 and the appeal was partly allowed reducing the amount to Rs. 9,916.10 ps. Of course, in both the orders 18% interest is levied from the dates specified therein. But the levy of interest will depend upon the principal liability.

2. In-so-far as the misappropriation aspect is concerned, it is alleged that Rs. 100/-towards sales-tax which is said to have been collected, is not reflected in the account books. The other acts relate to dereliction of duties. The acts relating to dereliction of duties re not stated with precision. The explanation of the petitioner is that he is not liable for payment of any of the amounts claimed against him including the above amount of Rs. 100/- found to be deficient on account of the sales tax collection. His explanation is that there was a regular accountant who was managing the accounts and that he was no way concerned with any of the amounts mentioned in the surchrge proceedings. It is admitted that apart from the enquiry conducted under S. 51 of the Act, no independent enquiry was conducted under S. 60 so as to make the petitioner liable for the enforcement of the surcharge order. It is pertinent to mention that enquiry under S. 51 of the Act is only an administrative enquiry for the satisfaction of the Registrar as to whether under S. 60 surcharge proceedings have to be initiated or not. Once the proceedings under S.60 of the Act are initiated, the enquiry thereof should be akin to Civil Court enquiry as the Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred expressly in view of S. 12! of the Act. As no independent enquiry has been conducted by the second respondent herein to pass a decree for realisation of the amount, the said order is not only an infraction of the statutory provisions, but also violative of the principles of natural justice. That apart, the iniliation of proceedings under S. 60 are hopelessly time barred. It is curious to note that the petitioner was on deputation for the period from 10-12-1965 to 25-7-1967, allegations were levelled against him with regard to the dereliction of duties for the above said period. The peti-lioner was repatriated on 25-7-1967, promoted as a Tahsildar during the year 1975 and had also retired from service with effect from 30-11-1978. Admittedly, a show cause notice was issued for the first time under S. 60 of the Act and served on the petitioner only on 27-8-1980. By no stretch of imagination can the authorities be permitted to sleep over the matter that long and then initiate proceedings, that too, penal in nature, at their sweet will and pleasure and as and when they want. Even according to the Society, because of the long lapse of time, most of the records were not traceable. For the reasons that no independent enquiry which ought to be conducted by the second respondent was not conducted in exercise of his powers under Sec. 60 of the Act and that the surcharge proceedings under Sec. 60 of the Act were initiated at a much belated stage, that too, after the retirement of the petitioner-from service, the same are held as unsustainable. In the circumstances, the orders passed by the second respondent and partially confirmed by the first respondent are set aside and consequently the petitioner is exonerated of the financial liability.

3. The amount which was deposited by the petitioner pending the writ proceedings, shall be paid back to him by the second respondent within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

4. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 250/-.

5. Petition allowed.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 1992 Same Parties S. Ramadas vs The Subordinate Judge and Others Same Subject Trusts and Societies Same Judge Subhashan Reddy, J. Acts & Sections Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 - Sections 51...

Trusts and Societies