The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the respondent No.2 to release the original Sale Deed bearing Document No 248t1992, dt. 18-01-1992 to the petitioner, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. l.A. NO:2 OF P. NO: 34206 OF 2009) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in s;upport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased stay all further proceedings pursuant to the proceedings No. VC/DA"I36,/2005/900, dt. 17- O2-2OO, issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOGILI ANAVENI Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI A.H.RAMA KRISHN,A RAO The Court made the following: ORDER (\ THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DE\II V/.P.NO. 26245 0F 2o,o9 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in hxing the financial liability on the petitioner jointly along with others vide Proceedings No. VC/DA- 136 I 2OO5 I 9O0, dated 17.O2.2OO9 without conducting any enquiry and without following the procedure iaid down under the A. P.Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and in not releasing the registered sale deed bearing Document No.2481L992, dated 18.01.1992 to the petitioner even after repayment of the entire loan amount in respect of the Staff Housing Loan obtained by the petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently to set aside the same and release the sale deed and to pass such other order or orders in the interest ofjustice.

2. At the time of admission of the matter, on O3.12.2OO9, there was an inteim stay of all other proceedings pursuant to the impugned orders dated 17 .O2.20O9 and the stay has been extended from time to time. I i 2 X

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of rhe present writ petition are that the petitioner joined the respondent No.2 bank as Staff Assistant_cum_Assistant Cashier on 14.03.19g7. The respondent No.2 dismissed the petitioner frcm service vide orders dated L3.OZ.2OOZ, against which the petitioner filed a petition before the Labour Court_I, Hyderabad, under Section 2A (21 of the Industrial Disputes Act, l94Z v:rde I.D.No.23 of 2009. When the matter stood thus, the respondent No.2 issued proceedings dated lZ .02.2009, fixing the financial liability of Rs. 1 ,O 1 ,O71 / - on the petitioner along with fi:rther finapcial liability of Rs.85,56,7 8Z / _ lointly along with others with applicable interest till the date of recovery. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been hled. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the responrlents have issued a show cause notice dated 23.70.2008 Proposlng to fix the financial liability of specifically on the petitioner and Rs. 1 ,O 1,O7 1 // - the further financial liability of Rs.85,56,7 87 / _ jointly along with others. The petitioner requested the respondent No.2 to rsupply certain records vide letter d.ated lZ .L7.2O0g, such as a copy of the fLarge sheet, etc., which was issued by Sri.A. Venkateswara Rao, the then Branch Manager, APCOB, Vengalrao Nagar ) ,:':l .11 i) 3 Branch, since the major hnancial liabiiity was hxed on him. However, the said copies were not supplied to the petitioner and his request was rejected vide letter dated 28.11.2O08 stating that the said documents do not pertain to the financial liability proposed on the petitioner and advised the petitioner to submit his explanation within fifteen days thereafter. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 only enclosed the statements containing the list of loans and Xerox copy of term deposit receipts alleged to be fictitious/ fake and the petitio.ner submitted his explanation on 1O.O1.2OO9, taking the ground that the Managing Director did not have jurisdiction to hx the financial liability on him. It was further stated that without conducting any enquiry either under Section 51 or under Section 52 of the APCS Act and without following the due procedure laid down under the APCS Act and without giving the petitioner an opportunity of proving his innocence, respondent No.2 proposed to fix the financial liability on the petitioner without there being any fault of the petitioner. It is alieged that in spite of receiving and acknowledging the said explanation, the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned proceedings dated 17.02.2009, fixing the Ilnancial liabiliry on the petitioner. l I 4

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was dismissed from service and without conducting any independent enquiry, has fixed the financial liability on the petitioner only to harass him. It is further submitted that while in service, the petitioner had availed a Staff Housing Loan of Rs.2,10,OO0/- from the rerspondent No.2 bank and has repaid the entire loan amount on 29.O1.2OO9, but instead of releasing the original documents to the petitioner, without assigning any reasons, the documents were with(reld which is illegal and arbitrary and therefore, the petitioner has assailed the said action before this Court by llling this writ petition.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations ol'the petitioner and stated that the bank has submitted the records as advised for the purpose of investigation into the criminal complaint in Crime No.566 /2OO2 filed before the SHO, WCt) T. 1, Central Crime Station and the petitioner was dismissed from service after a detailed enquiry and it is only after considering the entire disciplinary case and the explanation of the pel_itioner to the show cause notice that the financial liability has been hxed on the petitioner.. 5

7. As regards the non release of the sa,le deeds even after repayment of the entire housing loan, it is submitted that it has been withheld subject to the result of the proceedings of the Deputy Registrar, before whom the attachment of the property for financial liability hxed on the petitioner along with others is pending adjudication.

8. I-earned counsel for the petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit enclosing therewith a copy of the order of the Labour Court in I.D.No.23 of 2OO9, which was allowed by setting aside the dismissal order. Therefore, according to him, there cannot be any financial iiability fixed against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Inquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry has taken the position that the hnancial liability of Rs. I ,0 1,07 1 / - against the petitioner has not been proved by the respondent management. and therefore, insisting on the said liability does not arise, even after repayment of the entire loan amount in respect of the Staff Housing Loan obtained by the petil ioner.

9. Having regard to the rival contentions and the materiai on record, this Court frnds that after conducting a departmental ehquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service i I I 6 vide proceedings dated l3.OT .2OO7 and his aprpeal was also rejected vide orders dated 1O.O9.2OO8. It is thereafter that a show cause notice dated 23.lO.2OOq was issued for l-rxing financial liability on the petitioner and others and his explanation dated 1O.01 .2009 was considered and the impugned order dated 17.O2.2OO9 has been passed. Therefore, it is clear that no fresh enquiry was conducted before fixing the hnancial liatrility of Rs. 1,O 1,071/ - on the petitioner and also the financial liability of Rs.85,56,787 l- ot him jointly along ldth others. As regards the charge of hnalcial liability of Rs.85,56,78:// - on the petitioner and others, though the petitioner had asked for certain documents, the same were not supplied to I'rim on the ground that the said documents do not pertain to the financial liability proposed on the petitioner. After observing so, it is not understandable as to how the respondents have lxed the financial Iiabilily on the petitioner as well. Even liom the inquiry report, it is observed that the Enquiry Ofh,:er has held that the charge has not been proved against the petitioner. The respondent authority has not brought out as to why he disagrees with the findings of the Enquiry Offi<rer and has not issued any notice to the petitioner before confirming the charge against the petitioner. ,,_,_ 7

10. In view of the above and particularly since no domestic enquiry was held before fixing of the financial liability on the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order is not sustainable and it is accordingly set aside and the respondents are directed to return the mortgaged sale deeds of the petitioner within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order 1 I . Accordingly, this writ petltion is allou,ed. There shall be no order as to costs. t2. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petrtion, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness THE HON'BLE THE ACTTNG CHTEF JUSTTCE SUJOY PAUL, on this THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE //TRUE COPY/i SD/-K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To 2 3 4 1 The PrincipalSecretary, Agriculture and Co-operation, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Government of Telangana. fhe Managing.Director, ]elln-gg1a State Co-operative Bank Limited, 4_1_441 , Troop Bazar, Hyderabad - 500 00j. One CC to SRI MOGILt ANAVENI, Advocate tOpUCl One CC to SRt A.H.RAMA KRTSHNA RAO, Aitvocat6 tOpUCI Two CCs to GP FOR COOPERATION, High Court for ine Staie of Tetangana, at Hyderabad. [OUTJ Two CD Copies

6. PSK. BS w I ,i I J t I ti&eo+.-- -i. i{i i}i 4 I\ 'f 03 i ' i-{l ( r l ,/ HIGH COURT DATED:0610212025 ORDER WP.No.26285 of 2009 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS a2 9 lal