Important—Termination from service must comply with legal requirements.

1. The petitioner-Rangampeta Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited, Rangampeta, East Godavari District, represented by its Secretary filed this writ petition questioning the order dated 24-07-2006 passed by the 2nd respondent-Authority under Section 48 (1) of the AP Shops & Establishments Act, 1988 (for short, the Shops and Establishment Act) and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rajahmundry, as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and also the provisions of the Shops and Establishment Act and consequently set aside the same and pass appropriate orders, to meet the ends of justice.

2. Brief facts of the case are:-1st respondent was appointed as Secretary of the Vadisaleru Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society Limited, which later merged into petitioner- Society, by the District Level Authority in the year 1978. On the allegations that 1st respondent, during the years 2000-2001, committed certain irregularities, which were pointed out by the auditor during the audit, in maintaining the fertilizer stocks and that the 1st respondent misappropriated the funds of the society, he was kept under suspension by the General Manager, District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Kakinada, vide orders dated 06-04-2001. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st respondent filed writ petition being WP No. 11049 of 2001 and this Court vide order dated 25-06-2001 granted interim suspension mainly on the grounds that the authority which passed the order of suspension, suspending the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to take such an action. Operative portion of the interim order dated 25-06- 2001 passed by this Court is in the following terms:-

There shall be interim suspension of the operation of the impugned proceedings, dated 06-04-2001. It is, however, made clear that as the petitioner (1st respondent herein) conceded that the managing committee of the 4th respondent (petitioner-society herein) is competent to consider placing the petitioner under suspension, it would be open to the 4th respondent to consider if the circumstances exist, placing of the petitioner under suspension and if any orders of suspension are passed by the 4th respondent pending further consideration of this writ petition, the petitioner would be disentitled to question the competence of any such order passed by the managing committee of the 4th respondent. This condition is incorporated as the impugned order of suspension avers that the petitioner has been suspended on allegation of misappropriation. Notice.

3. To vacate the said interim order, the petitioner-society filed vacate stay petition being WVMP No. 2190 of 2001, wherein the interim order dated 25-06-2001 was modified, by order dated 30-08-2001, which is thus:-

Order dated 25-06-2001 passed in WP No. 11049 of 2001 is modified to the extent that the 4th respondent (petitioner-society herein) is at liberty to take disciplinary action against the petitioner (1st respondent herein) pending receipt of report under Section 51 of the AP Co-operative Societies Act.

4. Questioning the said order dated 30-08-2001, writ appeal being WA No. 343 of 2002 was filed by the petitioner-society. Since the writ appeal was filed against the interlocutory order passed in the writ petition, both WP No. 11049 of 2001 and WA No. 343 of 2002 were heard together and same were disposed of by order dated 18-11-2002 holding thus:

The short question that arises for consideration in the writ petition is as to whether after the abolition of the common cadre for all categories of employees, other than those specified in Section 116-A of the AP Co-operative Societies Act, the services of the writ petitioner were permanently allotted to the 4th respondent-society (petitioner-society herein) or not? If the services of the petitioner (1st respondent herein) stand permanently allotted to the 4th respondent-society, the 4th respondent alone is empowered to take disciplinary action