T. Narayana Swamy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2024 Latest Caselaw 8339 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

T. Narayana Swamy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 12 September, 2024

APHC010213262020

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI             [3330]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

           THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
               TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                      PRESENT
 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

                     WRIT PETITION No: 14065/2020
Between:
T. Narayana Swamy,                                  ...PETITIONER
                               AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others         ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:
  1. GANTA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
  1. GP FOR COOPERATION

The Court made the following:
                                        2




ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus seeking to set aside the proceedings in file no.DCOATP- CRTTOPACS(PACS)/52/2018-SI(2)-DCO-ATP dt.26.05.2020 (Ex.P1) to ordering enquiry u/s. 51 of the AP Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 by authorizing the 5th respondent as inquiry officer is contrary to the provisions of AP Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and Rules framed thereunder and also offends Articles 14, 21 of Indian Constitution and pass such other order....."

2. Through the impugned proceedings, vide File No. DCOATP- CRTTOPACS(PACS)/52/2018-SI(2)-DCO-ATP, the 2nd respondent herein, exercising the powers vested with, under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), ordered enquiry under Section 51 of the Act into the constitution, working and financial conditions of Chapiri Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited with special reference to the Test Audit Report dated 11.10.2018 for the financial year 2017-18 submitted by the District Co- operative Audit Officer, Audit Office, Anantapuramu District, and the report of the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Dharmavaram, dated 01.03.2019 and the report of the District Cooperative Audit Officer, Ananthapuramu, dated 03.04.2019 and the explanation of Sri S.Kumar, Senior Inspector.

3. The said impugned proceeding is assailed in the present Writ Petition on the ground that the respondents cannot conduct successive

enquiries against the petitioner and implored to quash the proceedings and referred the following proceedings. The petitioner further submits that the proceedings would reflect conducting of successive enquiries.

4. The Divisional Cooperative Officer, Dharmavaram, has submitted his report/remarks on 01.03.2019 to the District Cooperative Officer, observing that the remarks submitted in earlier report stand good and he requested to drop further action.

5. The District Cooperative Audit Officer, Ananthapuram, through e- office Rc.No.153639 dated 11.10.2018 has submitted his test audit report for the year 2017-18 to the Additional Registrar observing that M.Rajasekhar, Assistant Registrar was not able to point out the lapses and conducted audit of Chapiri PACS for the year 2017-18 with negligence.

6. The Divisional Cooperative Officer has submitted a special audit report of Chapiri PACS 2017-18 to the District Cooperative Officer, Ananthapur, vide proceedings dated 29.01.2019 recommending to direct the Managing Committee of the Chapiri PACS to initiate action against the Chief Executive Officer for the lapses.

7. The petitioner would submit that the Auditor has conducted enquiry and observed some technicalities against the petitioner and the Divisional Cooperative Officer conducted audit and submitted a report to the District Cooperative Officer and the second enquiry was conducted basing upon the test audit report submitted by the District Cooperative Audit Officer and the District Cooperative Audit Officer observed that no further action is required in the matter as per the audit report on the

ground of technicalities. And the District Cooperative Officer once again referred the matter to the District Cooperative Audit Officer to examine the report submitted by the Divisional Cooperative Officer and the District Cooperative Audit Officer has confined to his original report dated 11.10.2018 and he submitted his report to the District Cooperative Officer and the same was forwarded to the Divisional Cooperative Officer and the Divisional Cooperative Officer after receipt of the remarks from the Auditor, forwarded the report to the Divisional Cooperative Officer and the Divisional Cooperative Officer in his proceedings dated 01.03.2019, observed that his earlier report stands good and requested that further action may be dropped in this regard against the petitioner herein. Despite the observation made by the then District Cooperative Officer, now the present District Cooperative Officer has ordered an enquiry under Section 51 of the Act on the same allegations.

8. That no successive enquiries will ordinarily lie against any official lapses not detected within two successive internal regular audits/inspections of the same account. The Divisional Cooperative Officer has not given any reason why the committee should be recommended to initiate an enquiry and even did not give any reason why the auditors should not believe the earlier and special audits conducted earlier. Conducting enquiry without any reasons is equivalent to, being offered with law and this Court believes that it is an attempt to implicate the petitioner in false case to discredit the petitioner or to face an enquiry. If there are no reasons to initiate an enquiry, it is obvious to implicate the petitioner in any manner.

9. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would implore that the successive enquiries were not permissible and relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of the composite High Court in Primary Agricultural Co-op. Society, President, S.Ranga Reddy v. B.Malla Reddy1, wherein it is held that a second enquiry or successive enquiries are hit by the theory of double jeopardy to which a person cannot be subjected to. And in the present case, the said proposition is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case.

10. The 2nd respondent has filed counter and at paragraph No.5 of the counter, it was asserted that the 2nd respondent has ordered the statutory inquiry under Section 51 of the Act taking into the consideration of the reports submitted by the 3rd and 4th respondents and the action of the 2nd respondent in initiating inquiry under Section 51 of the Act is perfectly legal, valid and in accordance with law.

11. In fact, the 3rd and 4th respondents have recommended to stop the proceedings against the petitioner herein. The judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Primary Agricultural Co-op. Society, President, S.Ranga Reddy v. B.Malla Reddy's case (1 supra) is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case and successive enquiries are not permissible and it amounts to theory of double jeopardy. Therefore, ordering of enquiry under Section 51 of the Act vide impugned proceedings is not valid under law and it is liable to be set aside.

1996 (2) ALD 803 = 1996 (3) ALT 488

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the proceedings dated 26.05.2020, which are impugned in the present Writ Petition, are hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 12.09.2024 siva

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

WRIT PETITION No.14065 of 2020

Date: 12.09.2024

siva