The Primary Agricultural Co-op. Society vs B. Malla Reddy and Others

Lingaraja Rath, J.—In the appeal the direction of the learned Single Judge quashing the second enquiry initiated u/s 51 of the A. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 is assailed saying that the report of the first Enquiry Officer, Sri G. Jadusingh was one confined only to the year 1989-90 though he had been directed to conduct enquiry since 1st July, 1987 till the completion of the enquiry. A copy of the first enquiry report is produced before us wherein the Enquiry Officer recorded that the society had been audited upto 1989-90 and during the years 1987-88 and 1988-89, the society had earned a net profit of Rs. 1,53,866-46 and Rs. 56,831-84 respectively and as seen from the audit reports, it is observed that there were no serious irregularities in the said two orders and that hence he has conducted and completed the enquiry of the said society in respect of various matters for the year 1989-90. The District Co-operative Officer who had directed the enquiry to be held passed orders on 28-11-1991 that the enquiry report submitted was defective and infructuous on scrutiny and therefore necessity for re-enquiry into the case was felt for which the second enquiry was directed. The learned Single Judge held that the enquiry could not be repeated again as in effect such holding of fresh enquiry is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of principles of natural justice and would also otherwise affect Respondent No. 1''s self-esteem and respect which is provided under Article 21 of the Constitution. It was observed that office bearer of the Co-operative body cannot be subjected to perpetual enquiry one after another under the colour and pretence of power of the Registrar available to him u/s 51 of the Act. A view was also taken that though sweeping proposition that a second enquiry is not permissible under any circumstances is not acceptable in the best interest of the Co-operative movement and public interest, when a second enquiry is directed in respect of the very same allegations, fair play and justice require that the affected person must be informed of the same and given opportunity to have his say in the matter.

After a thorough examination of the case we are in respectful agreement with the learned Single Judge. It is a well known proposition that a second enquiry or successive enquiries are hit by the theory of double jeopardy to which a person cannot be subjected to. Apart from the reasons advanced by the learned Single Judge, the further fact that remains is that the report of the enquiry officer is only recommendatory in nature and the authority to initiate enquiry has himself the power to either accept the enquiry report or reject it either fully or in some respects and in the event he disagrees with any part of the enquiry report, he can call upon the person proceeded against to explain his conduct and in the course of such proceedings may also call upon him to explain any evidence, documentary or oral, appearing against him. The authority is not bound to accept the views expressed by the Enquiry Officer and can also take a different view on the same set of materials. It was hence not necessary for the District Co-operative Officer to direct a second enquiry if he was dissatisfied with the first enquiry report but could have proceeded in respect of matters which he felt were left untouched by the Enquiry Officer on his own, and called upon the respondent to explain such facts. In that view of the matter, the second proceeding was misconceived and has been rightly quashed. We, however, make it clear that the District Co-operative Officer can take action as is available to him as explained above.

The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.