ARAY SANKARAIAH v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1. P SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. S NISCHALA REDDY

2. Siva Prasad Reddy

3. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI

4. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: This Court allowed the petitioner to amend the main prayer vide order dated 19.11.2025 in I.A. No 2 of 2025 in WP No. 13221 of

2021. After allowing the amendment the prayer of the writ petitioner is to issue an order writ or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the action of the respondents in placing the petitioner under suspension pursuant to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Rc. No.2099/011/C dated 25.07.2012 and not reinstating the petitioner into service as staff assistant in 4th respondent society despite the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.994/2017/C dated

20.03.2021 by invoking the statutory powers conferred under Section 59(3) of AP Cooperative Societies Act 1964 and the orders passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.1045/2011/C dated 27.10.2016 absolving the petitioner of all the charges leveled against the writ petitioner amounts to illegal, arbitrary, unjust and without jurisdiction and also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently prayed to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of salary with effect from (w.e.f.)16.07.2011 till the date of his attainment of superannuation i.e., 30.06.2024 with all attendant benefits and allowances in terms of G.O.Ms.No.151 Agri & Cooperation (Coop-VI) department dated 22.06.2009 and HR Policy as adopted by the 4th 4 respondent society with interest thereon @ 12% per annum and pass such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. The facts that set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that petitioner was joined as clerk in 4th respondent-society later he was promoted as Chief Executive Officer vide resolution dated

27.01.2009 by 4th respondent-society and posted as Staff Assistant with effect from 15.07.2011.

3. While so the 2nd respondent District Co-operative Officer has ordered enquiry under Section 51 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act 1964 (for short herein after referred as Act) the enquiry officer has submitted his enquiry report vide proceedings in Rc.No.31/2011C dated

16.04.2012 against all the staff members of the society and ordered to recover Rs.1,24,479/- from the petitioner on the ground that petitioner has drawn excess salary. The 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated

24.07.2012 based on the enquiry report ordered to initiate disciplinary proceedings under Section 59(1) of Act. Subsequent to the said proceedings the president of the 4th respondent-Society placed the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 13.08.2012. Aggrieved by the order of suspension, the petitioner herein filed W.P. No. 25512 of 2012 and the said writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to avail alternative remedy before the Co-operative Society Tribunal. 5

4. Further it is asserted that the petitioner herein filed O.A. under Section 76 of the Act for ordering to recover an amount of Rs.1, 24,479/- aggrieved by the order dated 18.05.2013 of the 3rd respondent-Deputy Registrar Co-operative Society passed under section 60(1) of the Act and the said O.A., was allowed by remanding the matter for fresh enquiry by setting aside the surcharge order dated 18.05.2023. After remand, the 3rd respondent has conducted a detailed enquiry under Section 51 of the Act and held that 7 charges that were not proved vide proceedings in Rc.No. 1045/2011C dated 27.10.2016. While the enquiry is going on the society has recovered the excess amount from the salary of the petitioner. Subsequent to the order of the 3rd respondent dated 27.10.2016 in discharging the petitioner from the surcharge proceedings, on the representation dated 06.12.2016, the 5th respondent through proceedings in Rc.No.68/2011C dated 17.12.2016 directed the President of the society to reinstate the petitioner to duties, however the petitioner was not reinstated as per the direction of the 5th respondent.

5. Petitioner herein filed W.P. No. 19400 of 2017 challenging the proceedings Rc.No. 2099/011C dated 25.07.2012 of the 3rd respondent before the Common High Court aggrieved in placing the petitioner under suspension with consequential direction to reinstate with all attendant benefits, including for payment of arrears in the post of Staff Assistant on the ground that despite the writ petitioner being absolved or exonerated 6 from the surcharge proceedings vide proceedings in Rc. No.1045/2011C dated 27.10.2016. This Court has directed the respondent to pay subsistence allowance vide order dated 07.02.2018 in W.P.M.P. No. 23627 of 2017. Despite the direction, the respondents have not paid the subsistence allowance, hence the petitioner once again knocked the door of the High Court under the contempt of Courts Act vide C.C. No.1070 of

2018. Subsequent to the Contempt Case the respondents have paid the subsistence allowance to the petitioner.

6. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner cannot be subjected to prolonged suspension. Since the petitioner was absolved of the surcharge in an enquiry conducted by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, and the proceedings in Rc.No.1045/2011C dated 27.10.2016 have attained finality, the counsel argues that the petitioner is entitled to retire at the age of 60 pursuant to the amendment to The AP Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act, 1984 (Act No.23 of 1984) and the 4th respondent-society has adopted the said amendment.

7. The respective respondents have filed counter affidavit, their contentions divulges in the following: The respondent Nos. 1 to 3, filed counter affidavit and it is asserted that it is true that the petitioner was placed under suspension pursuant to the orders passed by the 3rd respondent under Section 59(3) of the Act. But it is not true that the 7 respondents are bound to reinstate the writ petitioner pursuant to the orders by the 3rd respondent invoking powers under Section 59(1) of the Act. Challenging the proceeding in RC No.1045/2011/C dated

27.10.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent, 4th respondent-society filed O.A. No.16 of 2016 and the same was pending for disposal before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal on which Sri A. Sankaraiah, writ petitioner herein assailing. Therefore, the Surcharge Proceedings against the petitioner even though closed at the level of Deputy Registrar Court still pending with the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada. As the matter stand thus, considering his request will be subjudice.

8. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed counter affidavit and it is asserted that the 3rd respondent permitted the 5th respondent to reinstate the petitioner under Section 59(1) of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. Challenging the surcharge proceedings issued vide RC 1045/2011/C dated 27.10.2016 of the 3rd respondent an O.A. No.14 of 2016 filed by the Society before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal and the same was pending for disposal on which petitioner is assailing. Society filed implead petition seeking impleademnt of the petitioner in I.A. No.63 of 2018, the same is pending for consideration. Therefore, the surcharge proceedings against petitioner even though closed before the 3rd Respondent, still pending before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal and also stated that Writ Petition filed by petitioner is still pending. It is further stated that direction of the 3rd 8 respondent in absolving the writ petitioner cannot be contrary to the law and by-laws of the Society, the respondent No.4 herein has to take action as per the procedure laid down in the service bye-laws of the Society. And it is further asserted that the Society by-laws were never amended and enhanced the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60 years due to financial condition of the Society. Further, Rule 28(7) of Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 states that the Cooperative Credit Societies mentioned in Section 115-C & D of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, are exempted from Rule 28 (6) and may frame such bye-laws/special bye-laws of service regulations of the Cooperative Credit Societies. Every paid servant and officer of that Society shall retire from service on attaining such age that is not in excess of the subsisting rules governing the age of superannuation.

9. It is noticed from the writ affidavit that the petitioner has made a representation on 01.03.2021 to the respondents 2 to 5 to reinstate the petitioner to the duties as the prolonged suspension is un-known to law despite being absolved or exonerated from surcharge charges levelled under Section 60(1) of the Act in an enquiry conducted under Section 21 of C.C.C.A. Rules against the petitioner vide proceeding dated

27.10.2016 by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society, inspite of direction giving by the 5th respondent to reinstate the petitioner under Section 59 (1) of the Act. On the above grounds the present writ petition 9 initially filed to reinstate the petitioner as Staff Assistant in 4th respondent- society with all attendant benefits including arrears of salary from

16.07.2011 by amending the prayer the petitioner seeks a direction to direct the respondents.

10. The Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs Union of India1, deprecated the practice of protracted suspension and repeated renewal and indicated that a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of suspension. The Supreme Court held that : Suspension, specially preceding formulation of charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature, and must perforce be of short duration. If it is for an indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based on sound reasoning contemporaneously available on the record, this would render it punitive in nature. Departmental/ disciplinary proceedings invariably commence with delay, are plagued with procrastination prior and post the drawing up of the Memorandum of Charges, and eventually culminate after even longer delay. Protracted periods of suspension, repeated renewal thereof, have regrettably become the norm and not the exception that they ought to be. The suspended person suffering the ignominy of insinuations, the scorn of society and the derision of his Department, has to 1 (2015) 7 SCC 291 10 endure this excruciation even before he is formally charged with some misdemeanour, indiscretion or offence. His torment is his knowledge that if and when charged, it will inexorably take an inordinate time for the inquisition or inquiry to come to its culmination, that is to determine his innocence or iniquity. Much too often this has now become an accompaniment to retirement.

11. In several or plethora of judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that a person involved in a criminal case, particularly in corruption case, can be placed under suspension till he is exonerated and he can claim only subsistence allowance. [ See Union of India Vs Rajiv Kumar reported in 2003 (6) SCC 516. (2) State Bank of India Vs Rattan Singh reported in 2000 (10) SCC 396]

12. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court has frowned upon the long period of suspension in the case Ajay Kumar Choudhary (referred supra 1). In the light of the above judicial pronouncement, in dealing with the subject of prolonged suspension, court cannot endorsed or direct as a matter of course for revocation of suspension to the employer to reinstate the delinquent. It has to be based on the facts of each case and after noticing the reason for the delay in keeping the employee under prolonged suspension.

13. On perusal of the material on record the 3rd respondent directed the society to reinstate the petitioner as Staff Assistant. It is not in dispute 11 that the petitioner was suspended on 13.08.2012 and the surcharge proceedings initiated under Section 60(1) alongside an enquiry conducted under Section 51 of the Act vide proceedings in Rc. No.1045/2011C dated 27.10.2016 resulted the 7 charges that framed were not proved against the petitioner, furthermore no departmental proceedings were pending against the petitioner. Mere pendency of O.A. No.14 of 2016 filed by the Society before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal or an application for stay did not amount to a stay, does not result in a deemed or automatic stay of the order of exonerating or absolving from the surcharge proceedings. That the order under appeal shall not take effect until the appeal is disposed of.

14. Therefore, it is a fit case that calls for interference on the basis of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs Union of India(supra 1)of the above cited decisions.

15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the suspension order dated 13.08.2012 is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner to the post of Staff Assistant. As the petitioner was superannuated on 30.06.2024, the respondents are hereby directed to pay the salary with all attendant benefits and allowances which he is entitled in terms of G.O.Ms.No.151 Agri & Cooperation (Coop-VI) department dated 22.06.2009 and HR Policy as adopted by the 4th 12 respondent-Society. The respondents can deduct any payment that was made as per the direction of this Court. However no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. Date: 21.07.2026 Harin __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO 13 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 13221 of 2021 Date: 21-07-2026 Harin