Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
D. RAMESH, J.
D. Narayana Swamy - Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 26725 of 2022
Decided On : 07-07-2023
Writ Petition - Suspension of CEO - Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Society Act, 1964, Section 59 - The court set aside the impugned Resolution, dated 10.08.2022, and directed the respondents to continue the petitioner in his job and take appropriate action after getting the enquiry report under Section 51 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a CEO of a cooperative society, was suspended based on allegations of misappropriation and financial loss to the society. The petitioner challenged the suspension through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspension was contrary to the instructions issued by the District Co-operative Officer and the provisions of Section 59 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Society Act, 1964. The court set aside the suspension and directed the respondents to continue the petitioner in his job.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the suspension of the CEO, compliance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Society Act, and the authority to issue directions for suspension.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suspension was not in compliance with the Act and the instructions issued by the District Co-operative Officer. It emphasized the need for proper procedure and evidence before suspending an officer under Section 59 of the Act.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the impugned Resolution, dated 10.08.2022, was set aside. The respondents were directed to continue the petitioner in his job and take appropriate action after obtaining the enquiry report under Section 51 of the Act.
ORDER :
This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 6 and 7 in suspending the petitioner through their minutes of meeting, dated 10.08.2022 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and against the procedure laid down in the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Society Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’).
2. Heard Sri M. Vijay Kumar, Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M. Chinnappa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Co-operation appearing for respondents 1 to 3 as well as Sri Harish Kumar Rasineni, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 6 & 7.
3. Facts in brief are as follows :
The petitioner was appointed as Attender on 30.10.1991 in Vidapanakal Farmer’s Service Co-operative Society Limited (for brevity ‘V.F.S.C.S’) of Anantapur District, and his services were regularized on 01.09.1996. Thereafter, in the year 2015, he was promoted as Staff Assistant and subsequently, got promotion as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of V.F.S.C.S on 04.06.2018.
(ii) As the 6th respondent being the Chairperson of V.F.S.C.S is doing illegal fertilizer business with the collusion of local fertilizer business people and making loss to the V.F.S.C.S, the petitioner made objections and rejected to cooperate with him, for which, the 6th respondent bore grudge against the petitioner and threatened him with dire consequences by using political background. The said issue was also brought to the notice of the District Collector on 10.07.2022.
(iii) While the things stood thus, on one occasion, the 6th respondent in collusion with local fertilizer shop owner requested through letter, dated 04.12.2021 to transfer an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, vide Cheque No.033490, dated 04.12.2021, (2) Rs.2,56,743/- vide Cheque No.064281, dated 06.01.2022 and (3) Rs.2,60,000/- vide Cheque No.064280, dated 06.01.2022, which is against the Rules of the Society and the petitioner bluntly refused to cooperate with his illegal activities.
(iv) Thereafter, while the 6th respondent is doing illegal fertilizer business at Palthur Sales Point, in Palthur Village, the petitioner visited the said Sales Point, verified stock on 02.12.2021 & 12.12.2021 and found misappropriation and deficit of stock of 297 bags of fertilizers, worth of Rs.4,11,605/- and noted the same in the stock register.
(v) While the things stood thus, surprisingly, on 10.08.2022, respondents 6 & 7 passed a resolution, suspending the petitioner from the post of CEO of V.F.S.C.S, alleging that an amount of Rs.64,00,000/- was misappropriated and did not recover from the concerned farmers, thereby caused financial loss to the Society. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. After receipt of the notice, the 3rd respondent filed counter and the same was adopted by the respondents 1 & 2. As per averments of the counter, it is alleged that the Chairperson has taken up business at Palthur Sales Point without valid resolutions of the Society. The Chairperson has extended credit sales without epos against the instructions of Agriculture Department for the sale of fertilizers and accordingly, the Chairperson has caused deficit stock worth Rs.4,02,970/- and reported that he repaid the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the Society on 16.05.2022. Basing on the information received from the CEO, an enquiry was conducted and during the course of enquiry, it came to light that the Chairperson has caused deficit stock worth of Rs.4,02,970/- and issued instructions to the concerned for recovery, later, the same was recovered from the Chairperson.
5. It is further stated in the counter that the 7th respondent passed Resolution on 10.08.2022 suspending the petitioner from the service. It is also stated that the petitioner has taken over the charge for the post of the Chief Executi
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Society Act, 1964, and the need for proper procedure and ev....
Suspension of an employee under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act must adhere to due process and jurisdictional authority, failing which it is deemed illegal.
The court affirmed that suspension under Section 59 of the Act is a procedural measure pending inquiry, requiring the authority to apply its mind to the facts and evidence.
Provisions of Section 76(B(2) would stand somewhat on different footing. This Court when is taking a view that action could be initiated under subsection (2) only after passing order of removal, issu....
The Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies cannot restore a suspension already lifted by the Committee, as such authority is not vested under the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act.
The court confirmed the validity of termination due to substantiated charges of misconduct and financial irregularity, emphasizing integrity in public service.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
