Back
1979 Supreme(AP) 133
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : LAKSHMAIAH
S.Mohana Lakshmana Rao - Appellant
Versus
A.P. Co-op.Central Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. - Respondent
Decided On : 03-22-79
A statutory body exercising supervisory power under a statute must observe the principles of natural justice, including the requirement of giving notice to the affected person and affording him an opportunity to be heard.
Headnote:
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES - ANDHRA PRADESH CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1964 - SECTION 115 - SUPERVISORY POWER OF THE BOARD - POWER TO ENTERTAIN AN APPEAL - NOTICE TO THE AFFECTED EMPLOYEE - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of a Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank, challenged the order of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Central Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. (the first respondent) terminating his services. The first respondent had allowed an appeal filed by a third respondent without issuing any notice to the petitioner or giving him an opportunity to be heard.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the first respondent had the power to entertain an appeal under Section 115 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, but it could not exercise that power without giving notice to the petitioner and affording him an opportunity to be heard. The court found that the first respondent had acted contrary to the principles of natural justice in allowing the appeal without notice to the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the first respondent had the power to entertain an appeal under Section 115 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964? 2. Whether the first respondent could exercise that power without giving notice to the petitioner and affording him an opportunity to be heard?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Section 115 of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, conferred upon the first respondent the power of supervision over the mortgage banks, including the power of appointment, transfer, and disciplinary action in respect of the employees of the mortgage banks. 2. The court held that the power of supervision under Section 115 included the power to entertain an appeal with respect to the appointment and disciplinary action of the employees of the mortgage banks. 3. The court held that the first respondent could not exercise the power to entertain an appeal without giving notice to the affected employee and affording him an opportunity to be heard. The court held that this was a requirement of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order. The court directed the first respondent to give notice of the appeal to the petitioner and proceed in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
( 1 ) THE nature, scope and ambit of Section 115 of the Andhra pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 falls for consideration in this case.
( 2 ) THE point that arises for consideration is whether an appellate authority purporting to act under Section 115 of the A. P. Co-operative societies Act is competent to allow an appeal, resulting in the termination of the services of the petitioner without any notice to the petitioner.
( 3 ) THIS is an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of an appropriate writ for the purpose of quashing the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Central agricultural Development Bank Ltd. represented by its Chairman of the committee of Persons-in-charge, Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein, dated 30-8-1978 disapproving the appointment and terminating the service of the petitioners.
( 4 ) THE petitioner passed B. Com. , Degree Examination in the year 1974. He registered himself as a candidate in the Regional Employment exchange, Vijayawada. As Gudivada Co-operative Agricultural development Bank increased business to the tune of 75 lakhs of rupees, the Bank created the post of the Executive Officer. The petitioner along with nine others appeared for the interview. He was selected to that post. By order dated 19th August, 1976, the Gudivada Co-operative Agricultural development Bank Limited appointed the petitioner as an Executive officer on a temporary basis. The petitioner joined the post on 29-8-1976. He completed the probation as per Bye-law No. 13 of the Special Bye-laws relating to the service conditions of employees of the Co-operative Land mortgage Bank Limited. By resolution No. 3 dated 20th February, 1 978 the Board of Management of Gudivada Co-operative Augricultural development Bank Limited, referred to hereinafter as Primary Bank, passed an unanimous resolution confirming the petitioner as an Executive Officer Of the primary bank with effect from 20th August, 1977.
( 5 ) THE petitioner was deputed by the Board of the Management of the primary bank to undergo the training of diploma course in Land Development Banking at Rajendranagar, Hyderabad for four months. Subsequent to the completion of the course he was conferred with the diploma in Land Development Banking by the National Co-operative Council, New delhi. According to the petitioner, he is the only employee in the Bank possessing this additional qualification.
( 6 ) THE Chairman of the primary Bank seems to have issued certain proceedings treating the appointment of the petitioner as irregular. But the same, according to the petitioner was rescinded as per the proceedings of the Chairman, dated 31st March, 1 978.
( 7 ) THE Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Central Agricultural Development bank Ltd. , represented by its Chairman of the Committee of persons-in-charge of APCCAD. Bank Ltd. , Hyderabad the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 30th August, 1978 directing the Co-operative sub-Registrar and Part-time person-in-charge, Gudivada Co-operative agricultural Development Bank Ltd. , Gudivada, Krishna District, the second respondent herein to terminate the petitioner s service as an Executive officer. It is under this circumstance the petitioner invoked the extracrdinary jurisdiction of this Court seeking the relief as stated above.
( 8 ) SRI K. Ramachandra Rao, Accountant working in the primary bank was impleaded as Respondent No. 3 and he was served with notice of this Writ Petition along with respondents 1 and 2.
( 9 ) SRI Venkata Ramana, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order passed by the first respondent as an Appellate authority suffers from the infirmity of want of jurisdiction and that no notice was given to the petitioner and the principles of natural justice were not observed.
( 10 ) WHEN once the petitioner was confirmed, neither the first respondent, nor the second respondent according to the learned counsel fo
