ORDER : (Subba Reddy Satti, J.) The above writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent vide Rc.No.857/2022-C dated 22.05.2024 and the consequential suspension order issued by the 3rd respondent vide File No.1/2024 dated 31.08.2024, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the service conditions and provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short “the Act”). 2. a) Petitioner, working as a clerk in the 3rd respondent society was entrusted the duties of computer operator and later appointed as Chief Executive Officer from 08.09.2021 to 01.10.2021 for 22 days. The Joint Registrar-District Cooperative Officer ordered an inquiry under Section 51 of the Act, into the affairs of the 3rd respondent-society. The inquiry officer submitted a report on the affairs of the Society and reported that an amount of Rs.438.58 lakhs was misappropriated. The inquiry officer named some of the employees and concluded that those employees are jointly and severally liable. b) The 2nd respondent, by exercising the powers under Section 59 of the Act, directed the Person-in-Charge Committee of the 3rd respondent to suspend the petitioner and other employees by proceedings Rc.No.857/2022-C dated 22.05.2024 (Ex.P2). Thereafter, three men committee by proceedings vide File No.1/2024 dated 31.08.2024 (Ex.P1) placed the petitioner under suspension. 3. Heard Sri K.Chidambaram, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Yashwanth Gade, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for respondents 1 & 2 and Sri Ganta Prasad, learned standing counsel for 3rd respondent. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that as per Section 59 of the Act, the 2nd respondent has to form an opinion and if any prima facie evidence against the employee is found, then alone, can direct the Society to place the employee under suspension. He would submit that case at hand, the proceedings Ex.P2 do not indicate the forming of such an opinion and thus, the 2nd respondent had not properly exercised the power and the authority carried away by the observations made by the inquiry officer. Thus, the proceedings are liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent-Society would submit that after the inquiry report was submitted to the 2nd respondent by the inquiry officer, the 2nd respondent, in turn, forwarded the same with notings to the Joint Registrar-District Cooperative Officer vide File No.857/2022-C dated 11.03.2024. Thus, the proceedings are liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent-Society would submit that after the inquiry report was submitted to the 2nd respondent by the inquiry officer, the 2nd respondent, in turn, forwarded the same with notings to the Joint Registrar-District Cooperative Officer vide File No.857/2022-C dated 11.03.2024. He would submit that the 2nd respondent on application of mind to the facts, directed the 3rd respondent to place the petitioner under suspension. He would further submit that suspension is not a punishment and the suspension order was passed on prima facie evidence. He would also submit that the suspension is for six months as per the service regulations and the same can be extended for six more months with the approval of the committee by recording reasons, after review. Thus, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. Now, the points for consideration are: 1) Whether the 2nd respondent exercised jurisdiction strictly in consonance with Section 59 of the Act and directed the 3rd respondent-society to place the petitioner under suspension? 2) Whether Ex.P2 discerns application of mind by the authority? 7. Before delving into the matter, it is appropriate to extract Section 59 of the Act, which reads thus: 59. Suspension of officer or servant of society:— (1) Where in the course of an audit under Section 50 or an inquiry under Section 51 or an inspection under Section 52 or Section 53, it is brought to the notice of the Registrar that a paid officer or servant of a society has committed or has been otherwise responsible for misappropriation, breach of trust or other offence, in relation to the society, the Registrar may, if in his opinion there is prima facie evidence against such paid officer or servant and the suspension of such paid officer or servant is necessary in the interests of the society, direct the committee pending the investigation and disposal of the matter, to place or cause to be placed such paid officer or servant under suspension from such date and for such period as may be specified by him, but not retrospectively. (2) On receipt of such direction, the committee shall, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the bye-laws, place or cause to be placed the paid officer or servant under suspension forthwith. (2) On receipt of such direction, the committee shall, notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the bye-laws, place or cause to be placed the paid officer or servant under suspension forthwith. (3) The Registrar may direct the committee to extend, from time to time, the period of suspension and the paid officer or servant suspended shall not be reinstated except with the previous sanction of the Registrar. 8. Section 59 of the Act manifests that in three situations i.e. (1) Audit under Section 50; (2) Inquiry under Section 51; and (3) Inspection under Sections 52 & 53, if the paid officer or servant is responsible for misappropriation, breach of trust or other offense, concerning the society, the Registrar, if there exists prima facie evidence against such paid officer or servant in the interests of the society, can direct the committee to suspend the paid officer or servant pending disposal of the matter or for a certain period. 9. A Prima facie case means, at first sight, at first view, or based on first impression. Similarly, prima facie evidence is the evidence that appears to be enough to support a case at first instance. The words employed under Section 59 that “the Registrar may if in his opinion there is prima facie evidence against such paid officer or servant’ gains significance. There is no ambiguity in the language employed in the section. 10. Thus, before placing the paid officer or servant under suspension, the competent authority shall apply its mind to the facts of the case. The competent authority shall also consider prima facie evidence. The authority normally shall not be swayed away by the observations of the inquiry officer. The opinion of the officer/authority and prima facie evidence are sine qua non to proceed further. 11. The case at hand, in Ex.P2 it was recorded as follows: “As per the findings of the Inquiry Officer and directions of the Joint Registrar/District Cooperative Officer, Eluru District, Eluru & in the interest of members of the society, necessary stringent action is very much required under Section 59 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 against the above mentioned staff of the Kamavarapukota LSCS, Kamavarapukota to take disciplinary action”. (emphasis is mine) 12. (emphasis is mine) 12. Thus the 2nd respondent, without influenced by the directions of the Joint Registrar/District Cooperative Officer, is of the opinion that stringent action is required under Section 59 against the staff involved in embezzlement of funds. That itself demonstrates the application of mind by the 2nd respondent to the factual situation. In fact, the inquiry under Sec 51 of the Act, in this case, shall be treated as preliminary. As per the scheme of the Act, after the inquiry report, another domestic inquiry will be conducted, wherein an opportunity will be provided to the employee to rebut or disprove the contents of the inquiry report under Section 51 of the Act. 13. If any finding on merits is recorded by the authority, at this threshold, it will cause prejudice to the employee. That is why the legislature in its wisdom used the words ‘in the opinion and ‘prima facie’ in Section 59 of the Act. Unless, is it demonstrated that the exercise of the power by the authority is arbitrary or without jurisdiction, this Court while exercising judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, normally will not interfere with the orders passed by the quasi-judicial authority. The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal but merely reviews how the decision was made. In the case at hand, this court does not find any such arbitrary action on the part of the authority or non-application of mind to the fact situation. This Court also cannot substitute its opinion when the authority acted and exercised the jurisdiction vested with it as per the Rules. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarvepalli Ramaiah Vs. District Collector, Chittoor, (2019) 4 SCC 500 , observed as under: “43. Judicial review under Article 226 is directed, not against the decision, but the decision-making process. Of course, a patent illegality and/or error apparent on the face of the decision, which goes to the root of the decision, may vitiate the decision-making process.” 15. The suspension, pending the inquiry, cannot be termed as punishment. Though the order of suspension does not indicate the period of suspension, as per the service regulations, the period of suspension is for six months, which may be extended beyond six months with the prior approval of the committee by recording reasons, after review. The suspension, pending the inquiry, cannot be termed as punishment. Though the order of suspension does not indicate the period of suspension, as per the service regulations, the period of suspension is for six months, which may be extended beyond six months with the prior approval of the committee by recording reasons, after review. Indeed, learned standing counsel for 3rd respondent admits that the suspension of the petitioner at the first instance is only for six months. 16. Given the discussion supra, since the 2nd respondent exercised the jurisdiction vested with it under Section 59 of the Act and also applied mind to the facts of the case and directed the 3rd respondent committee to place the petitioner under suspension, this Court does not find any irregularity or impropriety warranting interference while exercising judicial review. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, this order does not preclude the 3rd respondent from passing appropriate orders regarding engaging the services of the petitioner based on further developments. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.