Judgment : This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside Order in Rc.No.2301/2011-B2, dated 20-01-2012, issued by respondent No. 1. The facts, in brief, of the case are that, the petitioner is the elected president of Punur Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Yaddanapudi Mandal, Prakasam District (for short ‘Punur PACS’). As there were allegations relating to certain omissions and commissions against him, a preliminary enquiry was held. Allegation No.6 related to the petitioner’s close relationship with K.Balakrishna, a clerk in the Society of which the petitioner is the President. It is alleged that the said Balakrishna is no other than the son-in-law of the petitioner being husband of his daughter. The preliminary enquiry report was submitted by the Sub-Divisional Cooperative Officer, Addanki. This report is stated to have been countersigned by the petitioner on 17-09-2011. Thereafter, a notice was issued by respondent No.1 on 21-11-2011 calling upon the petitioner to showcause as to why he should not be declared as disqualified to continue as member of the Managing Committee and President of the Punur PACS. The petitioner vide his letter, dated 17-12-2011, requested respondent No.1 to grant ten days time for giving his explanation. His request was accordingly accepted. As no explanation was furnished by the petitioner even after the expiry of the extended time, another notice was issued on 26-12-2011 by respondent No.1. In the counter-affidavit filed by him, respondent No.1 has stated that the said second notice was returned by the Postal Department with the endorsement that “Refused. So, returned to sender.” Respondent No.1 has averred, and in my view rightly, that the petitioner has, thus, intentionally avoided to receive the notice. Thereafter, respondent No.1 passed order, dated 20-01-2012, informing the petitioner that he is terminated from the post of President of Punur PACS as per Section 21A of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’), and Rule 24 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 (for short ‘the Rules’). Assailing this Order, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri KV.Bhanu Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the petitioner was denied proper opportunity of being heard. Assailing this Order, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, Sri KV.Bhanu Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the petitioner was denied proper opportunity of being heard. He submitted that as the petitioner’s daughter was suffering from ill health, he was away from his village; that, therefore, he could not receive the second notice and that respondent No.3, at whose instance the proceedings were initiated, has got the postal endorsement manipulated. I am afraid the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Unless the contrary is proved, the endorsement by the Postal Department which is an official act is presumed to be correct. The petitioner, having requested for ten days time for filing explanation, has neither sought for extension of time nor submitted his explanation. From his conduct, it is quite evident that he was not interested in submitting his explanation and denying the allegation that the said Balakrishna, who is an employee in the Punur PACS, is his own son-in-law. Respondent No.3 has filed material papers along with the counter-affidavit, which contain the preliminary enquiry report of the Sub-Divisional Cooperative Officer, wherein, in respect of allegation No.7 relating to the petitioner’s relationship with K.Balakrishna, it was stated that the said allegation was found correct. The petitioner has affixed the stamp of the Society and signed underneath it on 17-09-2011 with the statement that all the facts narrated above are in consonance with the record and that they are true. Nothing more is required than this statement of the petitioner to show that he has not only not denied his relationship with Balakrishna but he has positively admitted the said fact. The next question is whether the petitioner automatically ceases to hold office. Even though, in the counter-affidavit, respondent No.1 has pleaded that the petitioner does, the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation fairly conceded that except in cases falling under Sections 21 (g) or 21-AA (5) or 21-AA (6) of the Act, the disqualification is not automatic. This submission is based on the provisions of Rules 20, 24 (3) (a) and Rule 21-A (4) of the Rules. Under sub-Rule (4) of Rule 24 of the Rules, the General Body of the Society shall, through a resolution, declare that a person ceases to be a member of the Committee of the Society concerned from the date of the disqualification. Under sub-Rule (4) of Rule 24 of the Rules, the General Body of the Society shall, through a resolution, declare that a person ceases to be a member of the Committee of the Society concerned from the date of the disqualification. This provision, obviously, does not apply to the disqualifications envisaged under Sections 21 (g), 21-AA (5) or 21-AA (6) of the Act. The petitioner’s case does not fall in any of the above provisions. In view of this legal position, respondent No.1 is directed to place the order disqualifying the petitioner as President of Punur PACS before the General Body for passing appropriate resolution for disqualification of the petitioner and ensure that the competent authority takes the decision on the basis of such resolution within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel, interim order, dated 30-01-2012, is vacated and WPMP.Nos.2531, 9152 and 13621 of 2012 are disposed of.