Allowed

B.v.Nagi Reddy, S/o B.Konda Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Apr 2023WP/9916/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court allowed a writ petition filed by a District Cooperative Bank employee challenging disciplinary proceedings initiated by the District Collector. The court held that neither the collector nor the District Cooperative Officer had jurisdiction to initiate these proceedings under the relevant bank byelaws and cooperative society act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 23.03.2015 of the District Collector was set aside with no order as to costs.

B.v.Nagi Reddy, S/o B.Konda Reddy Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

W.P.No.9916 of 2015 VS,J

¶3

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.9916 of 2015

¶5

ORDER:

¶6

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226 of

¶7

the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶8

“…to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to forbear from enforcing the proceeding Rc.No.2635/2014C dated 23.03.2015 issued by the second respondent by holding the same to be illegal, void ab initio and without jurisdiction and consequently to set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case …”

¶9

The petitioner was appointed as Branch Manager in the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Allagadda, on 06.03.1997 by the General Manager of the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, under physically handicapped category, after due process of selection. Subsequently, the petitioner was also promoted to the post of Assistant General Manager on 05.03.2011 under Regulation 20 of the Service Rules by the CEO and has been discharging his duties at District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Kurnool. The case of the petitioner is that, on 09.02.2015, the petitioner applied for medical leave by duly enclosing a medical certificate for a period of one (1) month, as he was injured and was suffering with pain in his left leg for which he was advised by the doctor to take bed rest for one month. The said medical leave was acknowledged on 10.02.2015 by the said CEO.

¶10

¶11

W.P.No.9916 of 2015 VS,J

¶12

Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that he was appointed as enquiry officer to conduct enquiry under Section 51 of APCS Act, 1964, in respect of certain irregularities in Hanumanthagundam Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Limited. On coming to know the same, the petitioner submitted a representation on 14.02.2015, expressing his inability to the District Cooperative Officer, Kurnool, stating that being a handicapped person, he is not aware of the process of conducting the enquiry and also that he has applied for medical leave from 09.02.2015, for a period of one month.

¶13

On receiving the said representation, the District Cooperative Officer, Kurnool informed the petitioner on telephone that his request cannot be considered, as the District Collector has directed for an enquiry into the irregularities in Hanumanthagundam Primary Cooperative Society and requested the petitioner to submit his representation to the District Collector, expressing his inability. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation on 20.02.2015 to the 2^nd respondent informing his inability and also to exempt him from the said enquiry, which was rejected by the District Collector vide Memo dated 02.03.2015, stating that “any failure in this regard will be viewed seriously and the petitioner will be liable for disciplinary action”.

¶14

The said rejection memo dated 02.03.2015 was received by the petitioner through a messenger on 14.03.2015, though he was

¶15

¶16

W.P.No.9916 of 2015 VS,J

¶17

asked to conduct and complete the enquiry by 15.03.2015. Thereafter, on 16.03.2015, the petitioner also received through post the proceedings of DCO, Kurnool dated 07.02.2015, wherein the petitioner was authorized to conduct an enquiry under Section 51 of APCS Act, 1964. The grievance of the petitioner is that the District Cooperative Officer, Kurnool is neither the appointing authority nor any superior officer in the hierarchy of post in the DCCB, Kurnool and the employee against whom the DCO, Kurnool has proposed to conduct an enquiry is an employee of Hanumanthagundam PACS Limited, which is not a part of the DCCB Limited, Kurnool, but a different organization and as such the petitioner cannot be compelled to take up the enquiry as ordered by DCO, vide proceedings dated 07.02.2015.

¶18

The 2^nd respondent-District Collector herein, vide proceedings in RC.No.2635/2014-C, dated 23.03.2015, issued orders proposing to hold enquiry into the charges framed and without any authority or jurisdiction to conduct disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner.

¶19

When the matter came up for admission on 08.04.2015,

¶20

this Court was pleased to grant the following interim order:

¶21

“ The petitioner herein, who was working as an Assistant General Manager, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Kurnool, challenges the validity of the proceedings, dated 23.03.2015 initiated by the Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool drawing against him a charge-sheet comprising of two articles of charges.

W.P.No.9916 of 2015

VS,J

The Collector, it appears, was informed by the District Cooperative Officer, Kurnool that when he requisitioned the services of the petitioner herein through a proceeding dated 07.02.2015 to hold an inquiry under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, (for short, „the Act‟), he has declined to receive the said proceedings. All is not well with regard to a particular society and therefore, its affairs are sought to be inquired into. When the petitioner has flatly denied to shoulder the responsibility of conducting the inquiry under Section 51 of the Act, the District Cooperative Officer appears to have filed an appropriate report before the District Collector, bringing out the reluctance of the petitioner herein to obey his orders. Enraged by this conduct of the petitioner, the Collector has drawn the impugned order, framing two sets of charges and thus initiated disciplinary proceedings against him.

¶26

Ms. M. Siva Jyothi, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two fundamental objections against the impugned order; one is the District Cooperative Officer, Kurnoool is not the competent authority to pass any order under Section 51 of the Act authorizing the petitioner to hold the inquiry into the affairs of any society and secondly the District Collector is not the competent authority as per the service byelaws of the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Kurnool for initiating any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The District Collector is not also the competent authority to impose any punishment on an Assistant General Manager of the District Cooperative Central Bank.

¶27

Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation (Andhra Pradesh) would submit that the impugned proceedings do now warrant or call for any interference at the hands of this Court. All that the petitioner was asked by the District Cooperative Officer was to hold an inquiry under Section 51 of the Act, as the District Cooperative Officer answers the description of „Registrar of Cooperative Societies‟ as the expression was so defined under the Act. Even otherwise, the District Cooperative Officer is acting in the best interests of the organization and the interests of the cooperative society itself. In such circumstances, the petitioner should not have declined the obligation to conduct an inquiry. By his open defiance, the

W.P.No.9916 of 2015

VS,J

petitioner has exhibited not only indecorous conduct but also a blameworthy one which necessarily requires initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. This apart, the learned Government Pleader would also submit that the District Collector has the power of superintendence over all the cooperative societies and the District Cooperative Central Bank is also essentially a cooperative society and therefore, its affairs are also liable to be generally supervised by the District Collector. The learned Government Pleader would further submit that it is all the more necessary to preserve the public funds and ensure that they are properly expended. Any allegation of misappropriation, when it was brought to the notice of the District Collector, he has to necessarily exercise the power of overall superintendence and initiate appropriate action.

¶32

Section 51 of the Act empowers the Registrar either on his own motion and shall, on the application of a society to which the society concerned is affiliated, or when not less than onethird of the members of a Committee of the Society require or when not less than one-fifth of the total number of members of a society require, to hold an inquiry or direct some person authorized by him by an order in this behalf to hold an inquiry into the constitution, working and financial condition of a society. Thus, the main part of Section 51 clearly implies that it is the Registrar, who alone is the competent authority to order for an inquiry. Section 51 of the Act also enables him to hold the inquiry by himself. It has also authorized him to authorize by a specific order in writing passed by him to hold such an inquiry. Therefore, the District Cooperative Officer, Kurnool clearly lacks competence to order for an inquiry under Section 51 of the Act on his own. No doubt, the learned Government Pleader would point out that the expression „Registrar‟ as defined in Section 2(n) of the Act means not only the Registrar of Cooperative Societies appointed under Section 3 of the Act, but also includes any other person on whom all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act are conferred. It is therefore, very clear that unless the Act itself confers the power upon the District Cooperative Officer to conduct an inquiry under Section 51, he cannot answer the description of the expression „Registrar‟ as per Section 2(n) of the Act. I have not found any such authorization made by the

¶33

¶34

W.P.No.9916 of 2015 VS,J

¶35

Legislature under Section 51. Therefore, I have no hesitation to reject the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the District Cooperative Officer, Kurnool has acted in his capacity as the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies.

¶36

This apart, if the District Cooperative Officer is acting as a delegate of the Registrar, it is the statute which alone can authorize delegation of any such powers. No individual on whom the powers have been conferred by the statute is empowered to delegate any such power on to someone else. Exercise of delegation has to be authorized by the statute but by none else. This apart, even assuming that the District Collector has got the overall superintendence, when the service byelaws of the society have not named him either as the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings or the competent authority for imposing any of the punishments, the District Collector cannot fall back upon his omnibus executive powers to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

¶37

I therefore, find that the orders passed by the District Collector on 23.03.2015 initiating disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner are totally lacking any authority and competence and hence, the operation of the said proceedings is suspended.

¶38

However, the learned Government Pleader seeks a caveat to be entered in this regard. It goes without saying that it shall always be open to the competent authority to take action, which is considered appropriate and necessary, keeping what has been mentioned above in this order in view…”

¶39

In pursuance of the interim orders, it appears that no

¶40

disciplinary action has been initiated against the petitioner, but, however, this Court feels it relevant to refer to certain definitions of the byelaws of the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Kurnool, which are as follows:

¶41

“2. Definitions:

¶42

(v) „Bank‟ means the District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd., Kurnool.

W.P.No.9916 of 2015

VS,J

(viii) „Board‟ means the Board of Directors of the Bank.”

¶47

Further, Section XIV D (x), which deals with the Role

¶48

And Responsibilities of the CEO , states as follows:

¶49

“ x. He shall have the powers to:

¶50

a. Issue Appointment Orders as per the recruitment made by the Recruitment Committee of the Board subject to the approved staffing pattern

¶51

b. Issue orders of promotion as decided by the Board Transfer all the employees of the Bank as per the personnel policy and such exigencies as required by the efficient functioning of the Bank.

¶52

c. Initiate/take disciplinary action as per the service regulations.”

¶53

Further, the Section IX of the Byelaws of the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Kurnool, which deals with Service conditions of employees , states as follows:

¶54

“ The method of recruitment of employees, filling up of posts, promotions, staffing pattern, qualifications, scale of pay and allowances, disciplinary action and other service matters like responsibilities, duties, training, securities, job charts to each category, disciplinary authority, appeal, revision etc., shall be as detailed in the service regulations of the employees as approved by the General Body. The expenditure on account of establishment charges in a cooperative year shall be in accordance with the guidelines issued by NABARD from time to time.”

¶55

As the petitioner is designated as Assistant General Manager, the CEO is the appointing authority as per section XIV D (x) and has the power to initiate/take disciplinary action as per the

¶56

¶57

W.P.No.9916 of 2015 VS,J

¶58

service regulations, but not the District Collector, who has initiated action against the petitioner.

¶59

In view of the same, this Writ Petition is allowed, by setting aside the impugned order dated 23.03.2015 of the 2^nd respondent-District Collector.

¶60

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶61

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶62

stand closed.

¶63

_________________ V. SUJATHA, J

Date: 11.04.2023.

GSS

W.P.No.9916 of 2015 VS,J

¶68

119

¶69

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶70

W.P. No.9916 of 2015

¶71

Date: 11.04.2023

¶72

GSS

B.v.Nagi Reddy, S/o B.Konda Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.v.Nagi Reddy, S/o B.Konda Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Raghava Constructions (India) Pvt.Ltd., Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. Raghava Constructions (India)Pvt.Ltd., Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. Raghava Constructions (India) Pvt.Ltd., Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Boyapati Srinivasulu Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Varampati Amarnath Reddy Vs the State of Ap

G Lakshmi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh