Kastalq-Kishore v. The State of Telangana

Smt.P. Kavitha, W/o. and age not known to the petitioner, Chief Executive Officer, Rudramadevi Mahita IVACS Ltd., Rudrahadevi RbaO, UnOerBriOge, Jangaon, Jangaon District. Smt. Bandi Vijaya Laxmi, W1o, q@ age not known to the petitioner, president of the Rudramadevi Mahita MACS Ltd., Rudramadevi Roid, UnOel gridge, Jangaon, Jangaon District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one like w;it of Mandamus declaring the inaction of Responpent no. 2 to 4 for non-implementation of the orders passed by the respondent,no..3 in RC No. 326il2o1g dated 26.08.202'l by respondent no. 5 to 7 for reinstatement of the petitioner into service with the respondent despite making severql representations by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of principles of rlatural justice, fair piay and violation of Art. 14,'16,19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia IA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition un,ler Section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ir support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondent no. 5 to 7 to reinstate the petitioner forthwith into service with all the back wages pr:nding disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. BOMMINENT VIVEKANANDA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 7: SRI A. SHARATH CHANDRA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMFVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.7l5O OF 2022 ORDER: Heard Sri Bommineni Vivekananda, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Governmerlt Pleader for Cooperation for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri A. Sharath Chandra, learned counsel appearing for responder-rlt Nos'5 to 7' Perused the material on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was employed by the Str' respondent Society as art Accountant and he worked in various positions for the past 15 years without any complaint. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 under influence of the adversaries in the Society, levelled certain false aliegations of misconduct and misappropriation of funds amounting to Rs.28,822 I ag{.inst the petitioner. On 27.O8.2O2O, the 6tr' respondent issued a shou'-cause notice leveling severa-l allegations agai4st the petitioner and called upon him to submit his explanation u'ithin two (02) days and on 28.08.2O2O, t,rre petitioner sr.lbmitted his explanation and requested to drop any further action. On 31.08.2020, the 6th 2 respondent l)assed the suspension order slating that the explanation slrbmitted by the petitioner had bet n piaced before the Board mcmbers and the sairle was not satisfacton to the Board membt:rs, therefore, ordered to put the petitioner under suspension p::nding an inquiry by the committec constituted to inquire into tl.re allegations. On 02.IO.2O2O, tht Sth respondent placed the petitioner under suspension for six months stating that the inql iry committee has confirmed thaL thc pctitioner had committe cl finalcial irregularities and further directed the petitioner to cicposit an amount of Rs. 19,241/ - rvithin 3 days. 2(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in response to the suspension order, datcd O2.lO-2O2O, the petitioner requested the 5th respondent to p'-ovide him u'ith the copy of the report submitted by the inquiry commrtlee etc.. and further submitted that he had not committt cl any financial irregularities, therefore, he refused to deposit t he amolln ts as directed by the 5th respondent. Aggrieved by tlte orders of the suspension, the petitioner had filed appeal befor e the Members of the Managtng Committee to reconsider the :tcl.ion of the 5rlr respondent p acing the petitioner under suspe nsiot-t, but the appetlate authority did not consider his appeal or passed an-v / 3 order to date, but the 6th respondent proceeded u,ith issuing notices making the same allegations and pressurizing the petitioner for depositing amounts, for rvhich, the petitioner already refused to deposit the arhount as directed by the 5rt re spond ent. 2 (ii) Learned counsel for th,b petitioner further submits that on 24.O4.2021, the pFtitioner made a detailed representation to the 3.d responhent complaining about the illegal acts of respondent Nos.5 to 7, but the 3'd respondent did not act upon his representation, ai such, the petitioner made a representation to the 2"a respondent on 07.05 .2021 , and the 2"d respondent, in turn, forwarded his representation to the 3*t respondent and directed to enquire into the matter. Later, the

3.,1 respondent deputed the 4th respondent as an Inquiry Officer. The 4th respondent made a detailed enquiry into the matter and found that the Man[ging Committee of the Sth respondent has failed to follou, the procedure laid down under regulation 7 of Chapter V of the Service Regulations and the removal is not likely to stand legal scrutiny. 2(iii) Learned counsel for tlrle petitioner further submits that the enquiry report submitted by the 4th respondent was -\ 4 forwarded to the 2"d respondent by the 3.d resPondent and the 2"d responder-rt perssed orders directing the resJrondent No. 3 to ensure that the petitioner be taken back into r,he servicc n'ith all back \rages vide orders in Rc.No.3264/20L9-MACS dated

26.O4.2021. The 3'a respondent passed orrle rs in Rc.No 744 l2Ol7-C dated 27.O8.2027 directing the 5tr, respondent to take back thr: petitioner immediately into the service and r.r,ith ali the back u'ages etc 2 (iv) Le;lrned counsel for the petitioner I urther submits that despite t-he specific directions of the 2n(r respondent and

3.4 responderrt, the 5th respondent under influence of the 6th and 7tt' resp,)ndents, did not implement the orders u,ith a vengeance an,l ill-motive towards the petitioner. Therefore , the petitioner filecl the present Writ Petition.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 filed ,rounter stating that respondent No.3 filed a Case in O.P No. ll2021, belore the Cooperative 1'ribunal at Warangal, basing on the Inquiry,' conducted U,'s. 29 of the Telangana Mutuarlly Aided Co- operative Soci:ties Act, 1995, by the Deputy Registrar / Audit Officer, Jangaon, for the reasons of purchase of agriculture land and certirin adverse rnismanagement of thr: committce of 5 the respondent No.5 Society, the case is pending before the Cooperative Tribunal at Warangaf. And respondent Nos.2 and 3 do not have specific powers on Mutually Aided Co operative Societies

4. Learned counsel for respondfnt No.7 liled counter stating that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction as Section 2O of the Tblangana Mutually Aided Co- operative Societies Act, 1995, says that the ultimate authoritv of a Co-operative Society shall vest in General Body. The General Body of the Society, as pef Section 22(pl of the Act has authority to suspend any officer or servant ol the Society. Section 25 says that all the staf{ of the Co operative Society shall be the employees of the Co-dperative Society and shall be fully accountable to the Co-operative Society and be appointed, removed and function in accqrdance with such service conditions as may be framed by the Board. Since the Stt' respondent is registered under ttle Telangana Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995, it is entirely run by the Rural Women. The Society is owned, managed and controlled by the members for their economic and sgcial betterment \ -- - --'1 6 5 Learne,l counsel for respondent No.7 further submits that this Court hirs no power to direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to implement the "Enquiry Report" 1n Rc.No.3264l20 19, dated

26.Oa.2O21 , by respondent Nos.5 to 7 and l-re relied upon the judgment of this Court in M.V. Ro,manaiah and others Vs. A.P. Secretariat Emplogees Mutuallg Aided Co-operative Housing So<:ietg Ltd.t wherein this Court held that: "The F'egistrar has no power to enJo,ce an enquiry report. He is onlg empowered under Section 31(a) of the Act to direct the bctard. to conuene a general bodg meeting and to bnng to the not;.ce of the General Bodg either him.self or througt, his nominee for necessary action on the enquiry report for necessary action. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition

6. Before 11oing to the material aspects of the Writ Petition, it is necessary to extract the powers of the Registrar under Telangana M,-rtually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995. Section 29 of the Telangana Mutually Aicied Co-operative Societies Act, 1995 reads as under: "29. In.quiry: (1) Euery Co-operatiue Societll shalt furnish ang re'euont the Co-operaLlue Society has concjucte'd its affairs m accordance utith the infonnation required ttg the Registrar itt ' 1:o t:1;1 nt. t :ot 7 orde. lo enable him to satisJA whether co-operatiue principles and the prouisions of this Act. (2) The Registrar mag, of hts oun motion, and shall on the application, of a federotton to uLhich the Co operatiue SocietA concemed is afJiliated, or of a credttor to tuhom the Co. open iue Societg is lndebted or oI not less than one third of the Director, or of not less than one-tenth of the members, hold an rnqutry or cduse an rnqutry lo be mode into the speci|ic matter or matters relating to anA gross uiolation ol ang oj the proui.sions of this Act bg the Co-operatiue Societg. fi3) The inquiry sholl be qmpleted ulithin a peiod of four months from the date of recqipt of orders. Provided that the Registrar may extend the peiod of inquiry furiher peiod of one month tuhile recording the reasons thereof Ln u)nttng (c) lxxxl (5) The Registrar shall, u.titfuin o period of thirtg dctys from the date of the completion of the inquiry communicate the report of lhe inquiry or the reasons fcn'the non-completion of rhe inquiry, as the case mag be (a) To the cooperatiue societg concerned; (b) To the applicant federatian, if ang; (c) To the appltcant credttor, iJ ang: (d) To the person designate/bg the applicont directors, if ang: (e) To the person designated bg the applicant members, tf ony: lfl To any person, on paAmeft of fee faed bg the Registrar; and (g) To the cooperative Tribunal uhere necessary.l (6) The inquiry offcer octinB under thb section shall, among otlrcrs, speciftcaLLg state tLLe amount of defciency, Luaste or lo:;s uthich appears to haue been cctu.;ed bg the gross negligence or misconduct of any person in the parfonrutnce oJ' ht:; duies. 3l Action on Special Audit or InqLiry Report: On communication of a special audit report uncler Section 28 or an intluiry reporl under section 29, the Registrar should exomine th.? repoft and if satisfed on the ftndings o.i the report uithout pr=.iudice to cLng ciuil or ciminal proceeoings to u;hich the Board of Director mag be liable: di,'ect the Board lo conuene a General Body Meeting tuithin such reasonable time as he mag specifg, to enable him to bing to the notice of the General Body, either directtg or tlvough his ncminee, Lhe fndings of the special audit o' inquiry report, for necessanl acl.ion. If '|rc sociely fails to conuene General Body utithin one month it is cleemed that the General Bodg has occe]>ted the fndings of th'z Special Audit or Inquiry Report. N('twithstand[ng the action taken bg the Ceneral Body under th s section, the Registrar mog initiate necessary action on the ftn dings of Special Audit Report/ Inquiry Report.l (a) (b) Power gfReqistrar_to enforce enquiru reporl: Registrar has no pouter to enforce an enquiry report. He is on.ty empotuered under Section 311a) of tite Act to airect the Board to conuene ct General Bodg Meeting and to bring t t the notice of the General godg either himse[ or through his nom;.nee Jbr necessary actktn or. the inquiry report, besides opproachinq tlrc Co-operatiue Tribunal for necessttry actrcn. M. V. Ramanaiah and others u. A. P. Secretaritlt Emploqees Mutuallg Aided Co-operatii)e Housing SocietA Ltd. Hgdcrabad and others, 2Ol 3 (1) ALD 242 : 2( 13 (3) AL:f 298.

33. Pouer of the TibunaL to order recoueru:- (1) A ,\,[ember, Director or C-hoirpe|:;oft ol the Oo operatue Society mag, and the Registrar shall fle a coSg of the report of the Auditor or the Spe cial Auditor or the 9 Inqutry Offtcer, before the Tribunal uith on applicotion for necessary action against the person on account of u.those conduct the Co operatiue Societg has inanned losg. Section 33(3) of the Act saus At'Lll person a.clgieued ba an ordlr passed under this section may, tuithin sixtg days afier the date of, seruice on him of the order bg the |'ibunctt fiLe on appeal against sudlt ord-er in the High Court. ) 7 . A perusal of the above sections makes it crvstal clear that the respondent Nos.2 to 4 have no power to direct the implementation of the Inquiry report passed by the respondent No.3 in Rc.No.3264l20 19-MACS, dated 26.O8.2O21 b1, respondent No. 5 to 7 for reinsta[ement of the petitioner into service with the 5rh respondent. [4oreover, the 5th respondent Society is registered under the T langana Mutually Aided Co- op. Societies Act, 1995, it is entirely run by the Rural Women and the said Society is owned, managed and controlled by the members. As such, for settlement of any disputes, the Board members are competent authorities. Therefore, the Writ Petition is not maintainable anll the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, l0 in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed i/TRUE COPY// D L. LAKSHMI BABU UTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER \ To, 1 2 2 One CC to SRl. BOMMINENI VIVEKANANDA Advdcate [OPUC] One CC to liRl A. SHARATH CHANDRA Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR COOPERATION' High Court for the State of Telangana. IOUT]

4. KKS GJ Two CD Copies o HIGH COURT DATED:0610212025 I ORDER WP.No.7150 of 2022 ,z/.'-;-t:'' ': .{ ,€ 2 5 AUE 2116 ?- !., rl- r, -:::-_- =;;2- -l :)' DISMISSING' THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS { J