Sri G. Subrahmanyam v. District
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Petitioner:MR.K.RAMAMOHAN- Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERAT ION T he Court made the following :
ORDER:
The petitioner was employed as an Accountant, initially in the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (PACS), Vijayapuram Mandal. He was transferred to PACS, Pamur, in the year 1998, and he is said to have joined that society on 24.02.1999. The PACS was merged with the first respondent in the year 2005 and it is stated that the petitioner has become the employee of the first respondent, on such merger. The petitioner states that he was not permitted to attend the duties of the first respondent- society, after the Elected Committee assumed charge. He issued a notice, dated 15.03.2007, through his advocate, requiring the first respondent to state several particulars of the employment of the petitioner. A reply was issued on 31.03.2007, on behalf of the first respondent, stati ng, inter alia, that the Managing Committee of the Society has passed a resolution, dated 15.04.2006, removing the petitioner from service, by paying the salary for one month.
The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. It is contended that the first respondent did not follow the procedure prescribed by law, be it in the matter of conducting the enquiry, or imposing the punishment. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit taking a serious objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner had to work out his remedies either before the authority constituted under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act (for short “the Act”), or by filing a suit. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in Sri Konaseema Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Amalapuram v. N.Seetha Rama Raju [1] . Heard Sri K.Rammohan Mahadeva, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Srinivas Polavarapu, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2. It is not in dispute that the first respondent is a Co- operative Society formed under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act.
Operative part
The challenge in this writ petition is to the action of respondents 1 and 2 in removing the petitioner from service. I n Sri Konaseema Co-op., Central Bank Limited’s case (supra), this Court held that a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not available in matters of this nature. The petitioner has to work his remedies before the authority under the Act, or by filing a suit. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies before the concerned authority and raise all his contentions. There shall be no order as to costs. Dt.06.08.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ _______________________ [1] AIR 1990 AP 171
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Right to Information Act, 2005 — s. 3; A.P. Shops and Establishments Act; A.P. Co-operative Societies Act.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.