Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
U. Shankaraiah vs District Co-Operative Central Bank, ... on 20 January, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(2)ALD307, 2000(3)ALT404
ORDER
1. Aggrieved by the action of the second respondent Society in removing him from the post of Paid Secretary by a resolution dated 6-6-1989, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as Paid Secretary in the 2nd respondent-Society since several years and he was performing his duties to the satisfaction of the superior officers. However, the 3rd respondent, who is the President of the Managing Committee of the 2nd respondent-Society, with a mala fide intention and to cover up his own laches, got a resolution passed by the Society on 6-6-1989 removing him from the post of Paid Secretary on the allegation that he has misutilised some funds of the Society. It is his further case that no enquiry, whatsoever, was conducted into the said allegation and he was not given any opportunity to explain his case before the said resolution was passed. That resolution is now under challenge in this writ petition.
3. Sri R. Subhash Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the 2nd respondent in removing the petitioner from the post of Paid Secretary by means of a resolution without conducting any enquiry, is arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
4. In the counter-affidavit that was filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, it was only stated that an enquiry was held under Section 51 of the Co-operative Societies Act (for short 'the Act') by the Sub-Registrar and the petitioner was also given an opportunity during that enquiry. In my considered view, the petitioner cannot be removed from service on the basis of the enquiry conducted under Section 51 of the Act. The 2nd respondent-Society is under a legal obligation to conduct a departmental enquiry on the basis of the findings recorded by the Sub-Registrar, giving an opportunity to the petitioner. Undisputedly, no such departmental enquiry was conducted. In fact no disciplinary action was initiated at all.
5. It is also pertinent to note here that this Court while admitting the writ petition on 20-9-1989, granted interim direction in WP MP Nos.16319 and 16320 of 1989 directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in service and also pay him the salary. Subsequently, WV MP No.1844 of 1989 was filed by the respondents to vacate the said interim order. After hearing both sides, this Court, by its order dated 22-12-1989, made the interim direction absolute. The petitioner is now continuing in the service of the second respondent.
6. For the aforementioned reasons, the action of the 2nd respondent in removing the petitioner from service by its resolution dated 6-6-1989 cannot be sustained. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed with costs. A Writ of Mandamus shall issue declaring the said action of the second respondent as illegal and void.