Koooula Upendranath v. The State of Telangana

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 in the nature of writ of Mandamus, the action of the respondent No. 2 and 3/Bank Authorities in passing impugned orders vide proceedings in Rc.No.1227lEsll12024-2o25, dtd.2g.10.2024, suspending the petitioner from services, based on the preliminary enquiry report subnltted by the 4th respondent, including the tth respondent,s letter dtd.19.09.2024, without giving any opportunity or furnishing the copies of preliminary enquiry Ierport and letter of sth respondent. is illegal, vr,id and opposed to articles 14,19 aml 21 of Constitution of lndia, including contrary to Uniform Staff Service regulations of Employees of D.C.C.B's in Telangana Stat:, and is further contrary to Regulatior-r Chapter-Vlll, Rule 27 and without framing a,ry charges, and consequently to dirr::t the respondenUautho rities to reinstate thr: petitioner into service as Branch l,4anager, DCCB Khammam, NST Bypass ro:rd Branch, NST Bypass Road, Khanrmam urban, Khammam District, by paying all monetary benefits without inkrrference of the petitioner's regular duties, ra'ithout following due process of law. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circums ances stated in the affidavit filed in sLrpport of the petition, the High court may be p leased to direct the respondent No.2 and 3 to continue the petitioner into sel rice as Branch lVlanager, NST Bypirss Road Branch, Khammam, by suspendinl: the impugned suspension proceecings vide proceedings in Rc.No.j22ZiI:SittZOZq_ZOZS, dtd.29.1O.2024, penrJrng disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MUMMANENI SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5: SRI SRINIVASA POLAVI\RAPU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 and 7: Gp FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRJ JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA*'ESHWAR RAO WRJT PETITION No.13365 of,2o25 ORDER: Heard Mr.Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Cooperative Societies Department appearing for respondent No.1, Mr. Srinivas Polavarapu, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5 ald learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 7. Perused the material available on record.

2. The present writ petition has been frled by the petitioner challenging the impugned order passed in proceedings Rc.No.I227 lBstt/2024-2025 dated 29.1O.2024, whereby the petitioner was placed under suspension by the respondent bank authorities based on a preliminaqr enquiry report submitted by respondent No.4 and a letter from respondent No.S, without furnishing copies of the same or affording an . opportunit5r of hearing to the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined the service on O7.05.2O12 as an Assistant Manager at DCCB-Khammam, Madhira Branch, Khammam 2 District. In thr: year 2013, he was transferred to the Head Office, DCCB-Khammer-m, where he served until 2016. In the Tear 2015, he was promc,ted to the post of Manager. Thereaftt.r, he was transferred frc rn the Head Office to Nelakondapalli B :anch and posted as Ii:anch Manager from 2016 to ._h Lly 20la. Subsequently, ie was traasferred to Khammam Rurr tl Branch, where he irzorked as Branch Manager unr il 2021. It is further sr.rbmitted that the petitioner was then posted at Enkoor Brancl and served there until 2023. In the year 2023, he was transferrr:rl to the NST Bypass Road Brancl r, DCCB_ Khammam Ur:an, where he has been discharging tis duties diligently, with out any fault or irregularity, ald alwe ys in the interest of the Ilank.

4. Learned r:ounsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned suspernsion order dated 29.1O.2024 was issut d without giving any notice, particulars, or initiating any proceeciings, ald was based st,lely on the preliminar5r report subr ritted by respondent No.1 and the letter submitted by respondenl No.5. It is further subnLitted that the said documents were not furnished to the petitiont,r prior to the issualce 'of the suspens. on order. Furthermore, ttLe order does not specify the period of su spension, I I I I 3 as required under Chapter \alII, Rule 27 of the Uniforrn StaIf Service Regr-rlations applicable to employees of DCCBs in Telangana. Hence, the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is contrary to the service regulations of the Bank, and therefore, is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.

5. karned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no \ review of the suspension order was conducted even after the completion of six months. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 17 .O2.2025 requesting revocation of suspension, stating that no mlsconduct or irregularity had been committed by him. However, the said representation has not been considered by the respondent authorities.

6. At this juncture, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 submitted that they have no objection to the disposal of the petitioner's representation dated L7.O2.2025, subject to its proper and due consideration.

7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties and without delving into the merits of the case, respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the representation I I 4 dated 77.O2.'.aO25 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orrlers in accordance with law, within a period of four (04) weeks frorr the date of receipt of a copy of this orde -. B. With the above direction, the writ petition is di sposed of. No order as to losts. As a seq:e1, miscellaneous applications perLding, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- A. SRll,l|VASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Yr. SEC TIOfiTOFFICER To, 1 The Prl. Secret.ary,. Co-operative Societies Department iecret rriat, The State ot lelangana, iyderabad. The Chief Executive Officer, The District Co-operative ()entra Bank Ltd., ' !!glql!r, Gandhi Road, Gandhi Chowk, Khamham, Khamma,n Distrrct, 507003. The General l\lirnager,_The District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Mahatma Gandhi Road, Gandhi Chowk, Khammarh, Khammam Eistrict, 507OOa. J.hg ?uprtl G ilgr:l Man^ager, District Co-operative Cerrtral B;rnk Ltd., Ganlhi Road, Gandhi Chowk, Khlmmam, Khamma n District, \ ^1n^a-tpa 507003. The Branch-Arl lnager, The_District Co-operative Centra Bank Ltd., Khammam Rural Branch, Khammam Rural, Khammam Distric . 507003. The Tahsildar, l(hammam Urban Mandal, Khammam District. The Tahsildar, Konilarla Mandal, Khammam District. One CC to Sr, Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, Advocate K)pUCl Two CCs to CP for Cooneration, High Court for the Sti e of T:langana, at Hyderabad [OlJTl Two CC to The GP for Revenue, High Court for the Stat: of T€rlangana, at Hyderabad[OL -] One CC to Sri llrinivasa Polavarapu, Advocat[OpUC] Two CD Copies '- - ' 4 ( B o 11 12 '10 TJ GJP HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:2910412025 ORDER WP.No.1336ti of 2025 lJ e oF T, jr \- a.\' :, ) "s t' t, s"\$ \-.: '''rtit :a-::==a12- ,(- Ci.-' DISPOSING -THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS $