A writ petition does not lie against a co-operative society for the reliefs claimed by the petitioner, as a co-operative society is not a statutory body.

ALLADI KUPPUSWAMI, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as a Supervisor in the Chittoor district Co-operative Central Bank Ltd; who is the first respondent herein. He was later promoted as Bank Inspector and was confirmed in that post as from 1-1-1963 by an order dt. 28-2-1964.

( 2 ) DURING the course of a detailed inspection of the Co-operative society it was found that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- collected from some members was shown as remitted to the bank but it was not supported by any challan. The petitioner was therefore called upon to explain the above lapse on bis part and why severe disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 21-1-1974. Meanwhile by an order dt. 9-1-1974 of the President he was suspended pending detailed enquiry into his conduct and character. On 12-1-1971 the Chief Executive Officer of the Society one Narendranath passed an order under Sec $5 of the Co-operative Societies Act stating that it had been brought to his notice that as a Bank Inspector the petitioner collected a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from the members and the same had not been remitted nto the bank under the powers conferred in G. O. 38 Planning A cooperation (Co-op. IV) Department, dt. 22-9-1970 delegating the powers to him. He authorised himself to conduct an enquiry under sec. 51 of the andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act into the affairs of the society with particular reference to the above transaction. The petitioner was summoned to appear before him with all documents, records etc. Thereafter the enquiry under sec. 51 was conducted and the Chief Executive officer submitted a report on 2-3-1974. In that report he came to the conclusion that the petitioner with the intention to misappropriate the sum of Rs. 1,000/- falsified the accounts to cheat inspecting officials and did not care to make good the misappropriated amount even after it was pointed out by the zonal Officer. As he was guilty of misappropriation it warranted very severe disciplinary action. He suggested that the Society may initiate suitable disciplianary action against the petitioner. In view of the report the President directed that charges may be framed against him and enquiry held into those charges. Accordingly the Chief Executive Officer by his memo dt. 7-3-1974 framed the charge that the petitioner bad temporarily misappropriated Rs. 1,000/- The petitioner was asked to submit his written explanation to the charge. A questionnaire form also was enclosed with a direction to the petitioner to fill in and-resubmit along with his written explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 12-3-1974. He pleaded that he was not guilty and the allegation that he temporarily misappropriated Rs. 1,000/- was not just and correct. After considering his explanation, the President of the Society issued a show cause notice dt. 24-4-1974 in which it was stated that the explanation was carefully g ne through but it was not convincing and it was proved beyond doubt that the petitioner had wilfully falsified the accounts in order to misappropriate the sum of Rs. 1,000/- and was guilty of moral turpitude which was a grcss misconduct as defined in Chapter XIII of the award of the Industrial tribunal dealing with disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner was asked to show cause why he should not be dismissed from the service of the bank. The petitioner by his letter dt, 25-4-1974 stated that for submitting his further explanation he required copies of statements given by a. Seenaiah, K Pardhasaradhi Reddi and Doraswami Reddy before the chief Executive Officer and the Enquiry Officer. It appears from the other records that these statements were aupplied to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter submitted his explanation on 6-5-1974. He again reiterated that there was misappropriation by him and the misconduct alleged was not at all established. He also complained that the prescribed procedure was not followed or the principles of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document