The High Court · 2025

Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 4th respondent to allow the petitioner into servrces by paying all consequential benefits, wages from September, 2015 onwards, pending disposal of the writ petitron. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI T.KISTAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: AGP FOR SERVICES-ll Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI PARSA ANANTH NAGESWAR RAO The Court made the following: ORDER 5 + * * e ,r * * * l, I * l't I T I I I I t. I , t I i t I : ! I i * I I i HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.2528 oF 2020 ORDER Heard Sri T. Kistaiah, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

2. The Detitioner aooroached the Court seekino Draver as under: "...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.4 without issuing any orders or initiating any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner as contemplated under services conditions of the employees as directed by the 3'd respondent proceedings Rc.No. 7231/2018-C, dated 08.09.2019 is illegal, arbitrary, u nconstitutiona I and against the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of india and consequently direct the 4th respondent to allow the petitioner into. services by paying all consequential benefits wages from September 2015 onwards and pass..."

3. The case or the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner has been a regular employee of the Primary Agricultural 2 SN, J wP 2528 2020 Credit Soci,3ties (pACS) since 1987 and was promoted as Chief Executive Officer of 5th respondent Society in 2009 and served as such without any adverse remarks. During the tenure of B.Krishnaiah, who was elected as president to 5th respondent Society, audit issues arose due to oral advances given to staff by the said president. A show_cause notice was issued in 2016 under the TCS Act, 1964 calling explanation from all the concerned. Subsequenfly, administrative control was shifted to respondent No.3. The petitioner,s further case is that even though the petitioner is not in due of any amount to the 4th respondent, the 4th respondent forcibly prevented the petitioner to discharge petitioner,s duties as CEO, despite an order from 3'd respondent dated 08.09.2019 permitting the petitioner to resume duties in 4th respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petttion.

4. PERUSED THE RECO RD: A.T e lev nt ion of h r eedin of 3'd en -Di tri ativ offi Ran Redd SN, ] wP 252a ZO20 District vide Rc. No.1231 2o18-C dated OB .09.201 I extractedhereu nder "f - As seen from the representation of the individual and records of the society manifest clearly that the society has not initiated any disciplinary action against the employee as contemplated under service conditions of the employees of the society. Thus without initiating any disciplinary action, issue of charge memo, appointment of enquiry officer, punishing an employee orally and preventing him from lawful duties would clearly amounts to in violation of rules. The statutory rules clearly stipulate that no employee should be punished without following due process of law. In the instant case the employee was not served with any charge sheet, no disciplinary action has been initiated and issued any lawful orders terminating the employee from service. Thus non compliance of statutory rules amounts a glaring violation of rules and against the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The 'Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court in number of cases clearly held that non compliance of the statutory rules, and following due process of law as laid down under service rules, the employees would entail all the back wages and consequential benefits on account of such statutory lapses noticed during the course of process 4 WP.'5'B-;UiJ of disciplinary action contemplated under the rules. Further it is noticed that there was no action from the authority who has issued notice in Rc.No.542 /2Ot6- C1 dt. 06-06-2016 fixing any liabitity and culpabte act cornmitted by the employee. Pending such action preventing the employee from his duties, r,rrould lead into involvement of the society in unnecessary legal litigations and ultimately causes the financial losses and payment of wages to the employee without undertaking and rendering services. Thus in case if the employee moves the matter before the appropriate,court of law for not following due process of law and the procedure contemplated under service conditions of employees, such action rryould be declared on the part of the society as illegal, arbitrariness and misuse of powers and against the settled principles of natural justice. For non compliance of the provisions and procedures laid down under the service conditions of the employees, the individual is otherwise entitled wages and consequential benefits for the said oeriod in accordance.with the established principles of natural justice. B. Having considered the material facts and without prejudice to any action pending into the matter and allegations noticed during the course of audit for the year 2014-15 and other mode of procedures of disciplinary action contemplated under service ? t { { I l 5 5N,.1 wP _2528_202a conditions of the employees, he PfC h irm the PACs Shad na qa r, Ranqa Reddv District is ted o allow hes rvtc r .D. BalIaiG d into the societv immedia elv. In case if the Managing Committee members of the society not acted according to rules and directions of this office, the Managing Committee members would alone responsible for all the legal consequences arising there for in the matter. Th re ort has to be sent tot his office w thin a oid an r in the further Ieqal comD lications I n the matt tnt rest of iustice." in ord rto com lan o tiv on en ra davi ha been fil don beh fof o.4 nd in icul r a r hN a 5 ts extra cted hereunder: It is submitted that, the wi-it petitioner even after taken back to service has continued his attitude. The writ petitioner was not attending to office regularly and the committee have also instructed him on his irregular absent but he has not changed his attitude and he was attended office weekly one day or two days. The society records also kept under his lock and key due to this the staff was unable to attend office duties due to non availability of society records. After reminding several times last stage the t1 ;& 6 *o ,rru iliJ commirtee suspended the writ petitioner and appointed Sri Bran as CEO. Against the writ petitioner requested the committee members and promised to attend office regular maintain all records upto date and produce before the MC members whene',rer they ask. The Committee members discussed and accepted the request of the writ petitioner taken into service with strict instructions. But the members are facing inconvenience. The Deputy' Reg istra r/Divisional Cooperative Officer througr Rc. No 65L/2013-C, dt: 31-01-2014 by virtue of the powers U/s 59 of the A. P Cooperative Societies Act 7 of 1964 directed the President and the Managing Committee members of the 4th respondent to place the writ petitioner under suspension with immediate effect as if he continues in the society there is a scope of further m isa ppropriation. Further the writ petitioner was not maintaining the records properly and he has not made the records of the society available to the managing committee. The Managing Committee in its resolution dt: 26-06-2015 after the writ petitioner admitted his misdeeds in the society and unauthorised absent, has removed the writ petitioner from service. It is also relevant to state that the said resolution was also seen by the Divisional cooperative Officer on 26-06-2015. In pursuance of the resolution of the managing committee, the I t I , i t ! , t I ; i t , ' i , Ii I t I , :i t 1 7 wp_2s28_:Uid president of the 4th respondent issued proceedings dt: 28-06-2015 removed the petitioner from service, which was duly communicated to the Writ petitioner. It is also relevant to submit that, the Deputy Registra r/Divisiona I Cooperative Officer issued Surcharge notice dated 06-06-2016 to show cause why the misappropriated amount pointed out in special report for the year 2OI4-15 should not be recoverable from the writ petitioner along with interest @ 1Bo/o. NCL ION:- ION ND 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, in spite of clear directions issued by 3.0 respondent-Joint Registrar, District Cooperative Officer, Ranga Reddy District, vide proceedings Rc.No.123t/2OtB_C, dated 08.09.2019 stating that the specific instructions therein should be complied and the compliance report should be submitted within one week to 3.d respondent, the petitioner had not been reinstated and not permitted to resume petitioner's duties with 4th respondent- Society as on date.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of 4th respondent_ Society placed reliance on the averments made in the co u nter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 and \\ 8 SN, J wP 2528 2020 contends that the petitioner had been removed from services way back rtn 26.06.2015 and the peiltioner had suppressed the said fact and approached the Court by filing the present writ petition. Since the petitioner had not come up with clean hands, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as sought for in the writ petition and seeks dismissal of the present writ petition. 7, A bare perusal of the record clearly indicates that the proceedings dated O8.O9.2O19 of 3.d respondent- loant Registrar, Dastrict Cooperative Officer, Ranga Reddy District, particularly at paragraph No.B clearly indicates a specific direction to 4th respondent-Society herein to allow the services of the petitioner into the Society immediately and further clearly stipulates that in case if the Managing Committee members of the 4th respondent-Society fail to act according to the Rules and directions of the Office of the District Cooperative Officer, Ranga Reddy Distract, the said Managing Committee members would alone be responsible for all the legal consequences arising thereafter in the said matter and further the compliance report had been 9 SN, ] wP 2528 ZOZO called for within one (01) week from the date of issuance of the order, dated 08.09.2019 from the 4th respondent-Society. However, the said specific directions had not been implemented as on date. A bare perusal of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th respondent in particular para No.5 indicates a specific plea of the 4th respondent that the petitioner had been removed from service on 28.06.2O15 vide proceedings of the President of 4th respondent Society, but however, the 3'd respondent herein vide detailed order, dated

08.09.2019 vide Rc.No.123L/2O[A-C clearly directed to allow the services of the petitioner into Society immediately on the ground that without initiating any disciplinary action against the petitioner by following due procedure petitioner cannot be punished orally and prevented from discharging petitioner's lawful duties, hence, this Court opines that petitioner herein is entitled for grant of relief. B IN IN SIDERA ..,, ; l i I ; i i l l I I t 10 SN, ] wP 2524 2020 a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-Il, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 4th respondent, c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of 4!h respondent,( referred to and extracted above) d) The proceedings of 3'd respondent-the Joint Registrar/District Cooperation Officer, Ranga Reddy District vr-de Rc.No.1231l2018-C, dated 08.09.2019 (referred to and extracted above) The Writ Petition is allowed. 4th Respondent- Society is directed to consider the request of the petitioner to implement the proceedings vide 1 ! : , To, * , * + * t SN, ] wP 25ZB 2020 Rc.No.1231/2018-C, dated O8.O9.zOLg, issued by 3'o respondent-Joant Registrar/District Cooperative Officer, Ranga Reddy District to reinstate the petitioner into service and also consider the request of the petitioner for the retease of all consequential benefits and wages with effect from 08.09.2019, within a period of one (O1) week from the date of receipt of copy of the order, since 3'd respondent had directed 4th respondent on O8.O9.2O19 to allow the petitioner to resume duties immediately, however, 4th respondent hadfailed to implement the said directions as on date, There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// -SD/.C. DEEPIKA STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER artment, Secretariat, Nampally, HYderabad

1. The PrinctP al Secretary, Cooperation and Agricultu Dep Hyderabad , State of Telangana 2. The Comm issioner for CooPera tion and Reg istrar of CooP erative Societies, 3rd Floor, GruhakalPa Buildings' Opposite to Gandhi Bhavan, Nam pallY, Hvderabad 3 T#Bi.,fi;t Cooperative officer, Ranga Reddy District' Gaganvihar' 7th Floor' - ii.i[ll sr,aan"grt, Faroocinagar Mandil' Ranga Reddy District 4ThePlCChalrman/Presrdent'PrimaryAgriculturalCooperativeCreditsociety 5 6;;'ct to'sCriktsrnlAH, Advocate [ol9.c] ^ ^ - 6 o;; cc i; SRi PARSA ANIANiH NAGEswni RAo Advocate [o.PUC] ;, i;; 66,i"-ci ioR SEiViCiS ii, High Court for the state of relansana at B. Two CD CoPies Hyderabad [OUT] BSR BS *. ..-,-.'ffi1!,?1.-r:?,'.{.ie€ HIGH COURT onrED: 23t0712025 CC TODAY t\Et TAq a{: --) t1 * D ORDER WP.No.2528 ot 2020 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 44 )s /za,/2 { $ i #r * *. a {l * + * *