Compliance with bye-laws and principles of natural justice is essential in employee dismissal cases.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Cooperation representing the 1st respondent and Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondents.

2. One Mr. Medapati Satyanarayana Reddy, Secretary of the 2nd respondent-Society filed the present Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the resolution of the 2nd respondent dated 04.03.2020 in placing him under suspension, he filed Writ Petition No. 12735 of 2021. While the said Writ Petition was pending consideration, the 2nd respondent-Society, filed a counter-affidavit, inter-alia, stating that the petitioner was dismissed from service pursuant to a resolution dated 09.04.2020 passed by the Person In-charge Committee in the General Body Meeting. In such circumstances, he filed W.P. No. 25839 of 2021, challenging the said resolution dated 09.04.2020.

3. Though several contentions were raised in Writ Petition No. 12735 of 2021, in view of the subsequent developments after filing of Writ Petition No. 12735 of 2021 i.e., dismissal of petitioner which is subject matter of challenge in W.P. No. 25839 of 2021, this Court deems it not necessary to go into the issues raised in W.P. No. 12735 of 2021.

4. Mr. K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the resolution dated 09.04.2020 dismissing the petitioner from service which is impugned in the W.P. No. 25839 of 2021 is wholly unsustainable. He submits that the said resolution was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice, contrary to the Bye Laws/service conditions governing the employees of the 2nd respondent-Society, apart from being without jurisdiction. He submits that the 2nd respondent-Society came up with the version of dismissal of the petitioner, for the first time, while filing a counter-affidavit in W.P. No. 12735 of 2021 after taking considerable time for filing the same. He submits that the said resolution dated 09.04.2020 was neither served nor communicated to the petitioner, at any point of time and the petitioner came to know about the same on receipt of the counter, to which it was annexed. While contending that though the impugned resolution mentions issuance of show cause notice and that the petitioner did not submit his explanation to the said notice, no details as to when the show cause notice was issued and as to when the same was served on the petitioner were divulged. He further submits that dismissal from service results in serious consequences and in such circumstances, the 2nd and 3rd respondents were required to give adequate opportunity to the petitioner, by strictly adhering to the Bye-Laws of the 2nd respondent-Society. While drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant Bye-Laws, in particular, to Bye-Law No. 7 which deals with the procedure for disciplinary action, the learned counsel would submit that the procedure as contemplated under the said Bye-Law, has not been complied with and therefore the impugned resolution is liable to be set aside on that ground. The learned counsel further submits that as per the Bye-Laws, removal/dismissal from service is a major punishment and in respect of the Secretary of a Society, it can be imposed by Managing Committee, in consultation with the District Level Committee. He submits that in the present case, no such consultation as contemplated under Bye-Laws was made and in such circumstances, the impugned resolution dismissing the petitioner as Secretary of the 2nd respondent- Society is vitiated. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks relief as sought for, by allowing the Writ Petition as prayed for.

5. Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondents, on the basis of averments made in the counter-affidavit submits that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of funds and an order of Surcharge under Section 60 (1) of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act was passed against