D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ petition seeks a declaration that the action of the 2nd respondent in collecting an amount of rs. 82,875/- on the allegation of misappropriation and also Rs. 2,660. 00 towards interest to the credit of the 1st respondent - Society without holding any enquiry pursuant to the notices issued by the 2nd respondent dated 18-8-1998, 24-8-1998 and 29-8-1998, as illegal and arbitrary. ( 2 ) FOR better appreciation, the undisputed facts are that the petitioner is one of the paid secretaries of the 1st respondent - Society. In the year 1998, it appears that an officer of a rank of supervisor unearthed misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 82,875. 00 by the petitioner along with an other employee and accordingly submitted report. Basing on the report of the Supervisor, Chinnagatugallul dated 22-6-1998, the 2nd respondent issued notice dated 18-8-1998, wherein it was stated that the 3rd respondent ordered for inspection of the society in respect of the above misappropriation. Accordingly the petitioner along with the other incumbent was directed to be present on 24-8-1998 with all the records and to give deposition. Pursuant to the said notice. on 21-8-1998 the petitioner paid the said amount to the credit of the society. On 24-8-1998, the 2nd respondent issued another notice indicating the postponement of the enquiry to 31-8-1998. Again on 29-8-1998, the 2nd respondent issued another notice indicating the postponement of the enquiry to 8-9-1998. However, the enquiry could not be conducted. ( 3 ) ON 1-4-2000 the petitioner addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent stating that though enquiry was contemplated through notices referred to above, since no enquiry had been conducted into the allegations made against him, requested the 2nd respondent to consider his representation and return the amount paid by him. As there was no positive response, he filed the present writ petition. As there was no positive response, he filed the present writ petition. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in spite of payment of the amount by the petitioner on 21-8-1998 itself, neither any inspection as contemplated in the notices, was conducted under Section 53 of the A. P. Co-operative societies Act (for short the Act ), nor any surcharge proceedings under sub-section (1) of Section 60 of the Act were initiated till date and, therefore, he contends that the charges levelled against the petitioner were ill-founded, inasmuch as no enquiry whatsoever had been conducted. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 sri Srinivas strenuously contends that since the petitioner voluntarily paid the amount to the credit of the society, no enquiry need be conducted. According to him, payment of the amount by the petitioner being on his own volition, would amount to admitting the guilt and hence no further enquiry is required. ( 6 ) IN view of the above facts and circumstances and also in view of the submissions, first of all it is to be noted that, there was no demand by the 2nd respondent with regard to payment of amount by the petitioner and in the initial notice dated 18-8-1998 it was brought to the notice of the petitioner with regard to only misappropriation of the amount and hence an inspection was contemplated and for the the petitioner along with the other incumbent were directed to be present with all the records, to give deposition. The petitioner immediately after receipt of the first notice, paid the amount on 21-8-1998. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner came to know through the Supervisor about this allegation and, therefore, immediately paid the amount along with the interest. But it is to be noted that, it is no where on record that the supervisor had informed to the petitioner about the allegations levelled against him, nor it is the case of either side. However in the notice dated 18-8-1998, the letter of the supervisor, Chinnagattugallul was referred. That means the very basis for the inspection of the records, was the report of the supervisor. But the facts and circumstances and other details were never made clear in the notice dated 18-8-1998. However in the notice dated 18-8-1998, the letter of the supervisor, Chinnagattugallul was referred. That means the very basis for the inspection of the records, was the report of the supervisor. But the facts and circumstances and other details were never made clear in the notice dated 18-8-1998. Similarly in the second and third notices dated 24-8-1998 and 29-8-1998 also nothing is mentioned, except the change in the date of enquiry. However, even before the issuance of the second notice, the petitioner paid the amount on 21-8-1998. But issuance of notices even after payment made by the petitioner, would indicate that the 2nd respondent was bent on to proceed with the enquiry, basing on the report of the Supervisor, notwithstanding the payment. ( 8 ) THE above said enquiry, in fact, is the inspection of the account books and other material by the financing bank, inasmuch as the 1st respondent - Society undisputedly is a federal society and the Chittoor District co-operative Central Bank is the financing bank, to which the 2nd and the 3rd respondents are the Deputy General manager and the General Manger respectively. Therefore, the 2nd respondent in the 2nd and 3rd notices referred to above, ought to have mentioned as inspection instead of enquiry . But however, whether it is inspection or enquiry, in the present circumstances, is one and the same and the process would not stop there and the consequential procedure has to be followed, by invoking Section 60 of the Act for fixing the liability, in case the incumbent is found guilty. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that since the petitioner had voluntarily paid the amount, there is no need to proceed further and the proceedings were dropped. But there is no material on record to show that the proceedings are actually dropped. As already noticed, issuance of the notices even after payment by the petitioner, would only gives a strong impression that the 2nd respondent was serious about conducting of the enquiry. But ultimately neither any enquiry is conducted, nor there is indication or information in this regard. ( 10 ) FURTHER it is to be noted that just because the petitioner paid the amount pursuant to the initial notice, the enquiry or inspection contemplated, cannot be stopped or dispensed with. But ultimately neither any enquiry is conducted, nor there is indication or information in this regard. ( 10 ) FURTHER it is to be noted that just because the petitioner paid the amount pursuant to the initial notice, the enquiry or inspection contemplated, cannot be stopped or dispensed with. During the course of any enquiry, may be preliminary, if any irregularity is found, consequential enquiry either under Sections 51, 52 or 53, depending upon the nature of irregularity, has to be conducted necessarily, inasmuch as some times some thing more could be found misappropriated than the provisionally assessed or greater irregularity could be found. Hence in my considered view, once irregularity is found, it is always desirable to conduct an appropriate enquiry. A perusal of the notice dated 18-8-1998 only reveals that an enquiry was contemplated basing on the report of the Supervisor dated 22-6-1998. ( 11 ) IT is to be further noted, under the provisions of the Act, even if a person is found to be guilty, various methods are prescribed to take action against such person, viz. , civil, criminal, departmental or surcharge proceedings under Section 60 of the Act. Therefore merely because the delinquent person who is initially tainted pays back the amount, he cannot be deemed to have been exonerated from all other mandatory formalities under the Act. ( 12 ) IN the instant case, as already pointed out, it is not known as to whether inspection under Section 53 was conducted as indicated in the notices. Further as per the decisions of this Court is S. Ramdas v. Subordinate Judge and S. Rama Subba Rao v. land P. D. Sub-Divl. Employees Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. , even if such an inspection or enquiry or audit is conducted on the alleged misappropriation or on some other acts, it is only an administrative enquiry for the satisfaction of the Registrar, as to whether the surcharge proceedings under Section 60 of the Act are to be initiated or not and when once the decision to initiate surcharge proceedings is taken, the enquiry thereof should be akin to civil Court enquiry, as the civil court s decision is barred expressly in view of section 121 of the Act. The view of the learned Single Judge has been approved by a Division Bench of this Court in sanyasinaidu v. Dy. Registrar of Co. op. Societies. The view of the learned Single Judge has been approved by a Division Bench of this Court in sanyasinaidu v. Dy. Registrar of Co. op. Societies. ( 13 ) THEREFORE, having issued the notices thrice, particularly even after petitioner making good the misappropriated amount, the action of the 2nd respondent in not conducting the inspection, cannot be appreciated. ( 14 ) IN view of the foregoing reasons, I pass the order as under:- the 2nd respondent shall conduct the enquiry as envisaged in the notices and fix the exact liability on the petitioner and in case the petitioner is found guilty of more than the initially assessed amount, he could be surcharged under sub-section (1) of section 60 of the Act or he shall be subjected to other consequential proceedings like civil, criminal and departmental, etc. 14. It is needless to mention that if the petitioner is found not guilty of the charges levelled against him, he shall be entitled for the refund of the amount paid by him pursuant to the enquiry notices referred to above. ( 15 ) WITH the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.