Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 15590
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J
Kastala Kishore – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.7150 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Bommineni Vivekananda
For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Cooperation, A. Sharath Chandra
Under the Telangana Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995, the Registrar has no power to enforce an enquiry report or direct reinstatement; they may only direct the Board to convene a General Body Meeting for necessary action on the findings.
Headnote:The petitioner, an Accountant of a society registered under the Telangana Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995, challenged his suspension and demanded reinstatement with back wages based on an enquiry report by the 4th respondent and subsequent directions from the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The society contended that under the Act, the ultimate authority vests in the General Body and the Registrar lacks the power to enforce an enquiry report directly, citing that the internal management of the society is controlled by its members. The court examined whether the Registrar or related authorities have the legal power to direct the implementation of an enquiry report for the reinstatement of a servant. The court focused on the interpretation of "S. 29" and "S. 31" of the Telangana Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies Act, 1995, concluding that the Registrar is only empowered to direct the Board to convene a General Body Meeting to bring findings to notice, but cannot independently enforce the report's contents for reinstatement. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. employee suspension and subsequent inquiry findings recommending reinstatement. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. jurisdictional challenge regarding the authority of the general body versus the registrar. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. statutory limitation of registrar's power to enforce inquiry reports. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. dismissal of writ petition due to lack of maintainability. (Para 8) |
ORDER:
Heard Sri Bommineni Vivekananda, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Cooperation for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri A. Sharath Chandra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 7. Perused the material on record.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was employed by the 5th respondent Society as an Accountant and he worked in various positions for the past 15 years without any complaint. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 under influence of the adversaries in the Society, levelled certain false allegations of misconduct and misappropriation of funds amounting to Rs.28,822/- against the petitioner. On 27.08.2020, the 6th respondent issued a show-cause notice leveling several allegations against the petitioner and called upon him to submit his explanation within two (02) days and on 28.08.2020, the petitioner submitted his explanation and requested to drop any further action. On 31.08.2020, the 6th respondent passed the suspension order stating that the explanation submitted by the petitioner had been placed before the Board members and the same was not satisfactory to the Board members, therefore, ordered to put the petitioner under suspension pending an inquiry by the committee constituted to inquire into the allegations. On 02.10.2020, the 5th respondent placed the petitioner under suspension for six months stating that the inquiry committee has confirmed that the petitioner had committed financial irregularities and further directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.19,241/- within 3 days.
2(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in response to the suspension order, dated 02.10.2020, the petitioner requested the 5th respondent to provide him with the copy of the report submitted by the inquiry committee etc., and further submitted that he had not committed any financial irregularities, therefore, he refused to deposit the amounts as directed by the 5th respondent. Aggrieved by the orders of the suspension, the petitioner had filed appeal before the Members of the Managing Committee to reconsider the action of the 5th respondent placing the petitioner under suspension, but the appellate authority did not consider his appeal or passed any order to date, but the 6th respondent proceeded with issuing notices making the same allegations and pressurizing the petitioner for depositing amounts, for which, the petitioner already refused to deposit the amount as directed by the 5th respondent.
2(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 24.04.2021, the petitioner made a detailed representation to the 3rd respondent complaining about the illegal acts of respondent Nos.5 to 7, but the 3rd respondent did not act upon his representation, as such, the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent on 07.05.2021, and the 2nd respondent, in turn, forwarded his representation to the 3rd respondent and directed to enquire into the matter. Later, the 3rd respondent deputed the 4th respondent as an Inquiry Officer. The 4th respondent made a detailed enquiry into the matter and found that the Managing Committee of the 5th respondent has failed to follow the procedure laid down under regulation 7 of Chapter V of the Service Regulations and the removal is not likely to stand legal scrutiny.
2(iii) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the enquiry report submitted by the 4th respondent was forwarded to the 2nd respondent by the 3rd respondent and the 2nd respondent passed orders directing the respondent No. 3 to ensure that the petitioner be taken
