( 1 ) PETITIONER-EMPLOYEE of respondent-cooperative Bank was not paid the gratuity payable to him, which was held in fixed deposit and not allowed to be withdrawn by the petitioner on the ground that proceedings under Section 60 of the A. P. Co-operative societies Act, 1964 were pending against him. Hence his writ petition challenging the withholding of the gratuity amount by the respondents. The High Court allowed the petition. It observed, referring to Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Section 13 of the Payment of gratuity Act, 1972 and Rule 52 (5) (o) of the a. P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964, and Rule 14 of the Payment of Gratuity rules, 1972 that there was complete protection against attachment or recovery of gratuity amount payable to retired employees, in any manner. (Para 13) in the instant case merely because the petitioner had given consent for keeping his retirement benefits in the joint names of himself and the third respondent, the respondents could not withhold the gratuity amount contrary to the Sections and rules, it was observed. (Para 14) petition allowed. For Petitioner: A. Giridhar Rao for Respondent Nos. 1and2: Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos. 3and4: R. Radhakrishnan standing Counsel order the petitioner questions the action of the respondents in not releasing the gratuity amount. At the time of his retirement Surcharge proceedings are pending and therefore the said amount has been deposited in the FDR bearing no. 13575, dated October 3, 2000, in the joint names of himself and the 3rd respondent.

( 2 ) AN amount of Rs. 2,71,500/-, payable to the petitioner towards his retirement benefits, has been deposited in the joint account, by the 2nd respondent, on the strength of the undertaking given by the petitioner to share the responsibility of the amount, if any, fixed by the Court/authority in the Surcharge proceedings in Rc. 4507/90/c, dated december 28, 1991.

( 3 ) IT is stated that the total amount deposited in the FDR pertains to the gratuity and leave encashment. Insofar as the leave encashment amount is concerned, the respondents have every right to recover the same, subject to the result of the Surcharge proceedings, but the amount pertains to the gratuity of the petitioner, is concerned, the same cannot be attached or recovered in any manner.

( 4 ) THE petitioner retired as Manager of the hyderabad District Co-operative Central bank. While he was in service an enquiry under section 51 of the A. P. Co-operative Societies act, 1964 (for short the Act ) vide Proceedings dated August 21, 1989 was ordered and the enquiry report under Section 51 of the Act, was submitted on April 19, 1990. Based on the said report, the District Co-operative Officer, ranga Reddy District, issued orders directing the 3rd respondent to place the petitioner and others under suspension. Accordingly, the petitioner was suspended on August 11, 1990. A domestic enquiry has been initiated to impose punishment under service conditions and the surcharge Proceedings were initiated to recover the misappropriated amounts. Insofar as the domestic enquiry is concerned, the 3rd respondent by his Proceedings Memorandum no. Admn/est/91-92/1453, dated February 5, 1992, decided to withhold two stagnation increments with cumulative effect and the same has become final and the petitioner is not aggrieved of it. Insofar as the Surcharge proceedings against the petitioner and 13 others covered by Proceedings in Rc. 4507/90/c, dated December 28, 1991, the 2nd respondent held that they are jointly and severally responsible for misappropriation of rs. 10,12,883/- along with 18% interest there under with effect from July 27, 1988, till the date of realization, against which the petitioner filed C. T. A. No. 45 of 1996, before the co-operative Tribunal (for short the tribunal ), Hyderabad, along with 13 others, who also suffered under the same Surcharge proceedings along with the petitioner. The tribunal allowed