Telangana High Court Sets Aside Surcharge Order in Cooperative Bank Case, Cites Procedural Lapses

In a significant judgment, the Telangana High Court has set aside the surcharge order against the former Chairperson of Vijaya Cooperative Urban Bank, Smt. T. Vijayalaxmi, citing notable procedural lapses and inconsistencies with the show cause notice. The case, which has been under scrutiny for financial irregularities, saw the High Court intervening to correct what it perceived as a deviation from statutory procedures.

Justice C.V. Bhaskar Reddy, presiding over the case, observed that the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer, which formed the basis of the surcharge order, did not adhere to the stipulated four-month timeframe as mandated under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. The Court highlighted, "The procedure adopted by the respondents herein is contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Act, and therefore, the same is vitiated and unsustainable."

The petitioner had challenged the Cooperative Tribunal's judgment concerning a surcharge order issued under Section 60 of the Act, alleging a violation of natural justice and procedural irregularities. The Tribunal had initially upheld the surcharge order, citing willful negligence on the part of the petitioner leading to the bank's liquidation.

In its ruling, the Court noted significant discrepancies between the liability amounts stated in the show cause notice and the surcharge order. The Court emphasized that traversing beyond the scope of the show cause notice and fixing liability over and above the specified amount "amounts to violation of principles of natural justice."

The Court's directive to the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee or security for the amount mentioned in the show cause notice underlines the tentative nature of the liability pending final adjudication. The Court's decision to remand the matter back to the respondent for conducting a fresh inquiry was based on the premise that "on remand, while reexamining the case, respondent No.1 has no authority or power to go beyond the scope of the show cause notice and come to a different conclusion."

This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring procedural correctness and adherence to principles of natural justice, particularly in cases involving significant financial implications and public interest. The case is now set for a fresh inquiry as per the directives of the High Court.

SMT. T. VIJAYALAXMI Vs. DEPUTY REGISTRAR / DIVISIONAL COOP. OFFICER, GOLCONDA DIVISION, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER