S. Kishore Kumar, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative

S. Kishore Kumar, S/o.late S.Koti Lingam, (DIED) Aged 58 years, ExManager, A.P. Markfed, R/o. Flat No.201, Block-C, KSR Complex, 0pp. Eenadu Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam-13.

¶11

Sangisetty Mahita Kumari,, W/o. Late S. Kishore Kumar, aged 63 years, R/o. D.No.50-1-23/45, Flat No.201, Block-C K.S.R. Complex, Eenadu Road, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam-530013

¶12

Sangisetty Krishna Kumar, S/o. Late S. Kishore Kumar, aged 34 years, R/o. D.No.50-1-23/45, Flat No.201, Block-C, K.S.R. Complex, Eenadu Road, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam-530013.

¶13

(Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 brought on record as LRs to the deceased 1 St petitioner as per Court Order dated 18.09.2024 vide I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P No 7920 of 2020)

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

AND

¶16

Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative, Marketing Federation Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, 55-17-2, 5^'^ Floor, Staling Corporate Building, Near CGO Complex, Industrial Estate, Autonagar, Vijayawada-520007.

¶17

...RESPONDENT

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Respondent and culminated into the proceedings dated 25.11.2019 in dismissing the Petitioner from service as arbitrary, illegal and violative Principles of Natural Justice, consequently to set aside the proceedings dated 25.11.2019 and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits including continuity of service, promotions, increments and other service benefits. Consequently the Honble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay the back wages, leave encashment, pensionary benefits, gratuity and all other incidental service benefits calculated on the basis of notional promotional cadre of the 1st Petitioner (Late S. Kishore Kumar) with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. (Main Prayer amended/substituted as per Court Order dated 30.08.2025 vide lA No.2 of 2024 in WP No.7920 of 2020) lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay the back wages, leave encashment. pensionary benefits. gratuity and all other incidental service benefits calculated on the basis of notional promotional cadre of the 1®* Petitioner (Late S. Kishore Kumar) with all consequential benefits

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI G. RAMA GOPAL

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. Y. MAHA LAKSHMI

¶21

The Court made the following order:

¶22

APHC010130532020

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶24

[3458]

¶25

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶26

THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 7920/2020

¶30

Between:

¶31

1.S. KISHORE KUMAR,, S/O.LATE S.KOTI LINGAM, AGED 58^YEARS,

¶32

- EX-MANAGER, A.P MARKFED, R/0. FLAT NO.201, BLOCK-C,^KSR COMPLEX, OPR EENADU OFFICE, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM-13.

¶33

2.SANGISETTY MAHITA KUMARI,, W/0. LATE S. KISHORE KUMAR, AGED 63 YEARS, R/0. D.NO.50-1-23/45, FLAT NO.201, BLOCK-C, K.S.R. COMPLEX, EENADU ROAD, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530013.

¶34

3.SANGISETTY KRISHNA KUMAR,, S/0. LATE S. KISHORE KUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS, R/0. D.NO.50-1-23/45 FLAT NO.201, BLOCK-C, K.S.R. COMPLEX, EENADU ROAD, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530013. PETITIONER NOS. 2 AND 3 BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LRS TO THE DECEASED 1ST PETITIONER AS^PER COURT ORDER DATED 18.09.2024 VIDE I.A.N0.1 OF 2024 IN W.P NO 7920 OF 2020.

¶35

...PETITIONER(S)

¶36

AND

¶37

1.ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COOPERATIVE, Marketing Federation Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, 55-17-2, 5th Floor, Staling Corporate Building, Near CGO Complex, Industrial Estate,^Autonagar, Vijayawada-520007.

¶38

...RESPONDENT

¶39

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction^{moreparticularlyonein} the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the disciplinary proceedings initiated

¶40

by the Respondent and culminated dismissing the Petitioner from into the proceedings dated 25.11.2019 i n: service as arbitrary, illegal and violative Principles of Natural Justice. consequently to set aside the proceedings dated 25.11.2019 and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all ^ may be

¶41

2074Tn'wPNa7920of2r2a''™"

¶42

lA NO: 1 OF 9n9A

¶43

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i ^.14.0 ^ . u ■ support of the petition, the High Court mav be oleased pleased to bring the following as legal representatives of the deceased Road, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatam and p^ss

¶44

lA NO: 2 OF ?n9d

¶45

in ^ f" the circumstances stated n the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be oleased pleased to direct the Respondents to pay the back wages learencastnent® pensiona^ benefits, gratuity and all other incidental service benefits calculated on the basis of notional promotional cadre of the 1st Petitioner (Late S. Kishore Kumar) with all consequential benefits and pass lA NO: 1 OF 202.*^ in the'^affi^avk Hed a' ^-dumstances stated Petition and pass ^^-Pdosentation the above Writ !AN0l20F 2025

¶46

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed i in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased

¶47

3

¶48

may be please to grant leave to the petitioners to file the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 1 in W.RNo. 7920 of 2020, before this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice.

¶49

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶50

G RAMA GOPAL

¶51

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶52

1.Y MAHALAKSHMI

¶53

The Court made the following:

¶54

ORDER:-

¶55

Heard Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners^and Ms. Y.Maha Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

¶56

During the pendency of the writ petition the writ petitioner^died and his legal representatives have been brought on record vide order dated 18.09.2024.

¶57

The present writ petition is filed challenging the^{orderofdismissal} of the 1®^ petitioner from service. The 1®* petitioner while discharging his duties as District Manager in Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited (A.P.Markfed), was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 26.07.2018.

¶58

The allegations against the 1®* petitioner are that he was required to procure Black Gram through the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies (PACS) of Allada and Chellavanipeta in the Srikakulam District, and in that process, he had committed certain irregularities.

¶59

4

¶60

In connection thereto, a Charge Memo dated 16.10.2018 was issued, requiring the 1 petitioner to submit his explanation. He had accordingly submitted his explanation on 02.11.2018. Subsequently, an Inquiry Officer was appointed by proceedings dated 27..11.2018. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 07.06.2019, stating that the charges against 1®‘ petitioner were proved, except for charge No.5.

¶61

On communication of the inquiry report to the 1®* petitioner,^on 16.10.2019, he submitted an explanation on 28.10.2019. Thereafter, the respondent passed the impugned proceedings dismissing the 1®* petitioner from service.

¶62

The brief facts of the case leading to the passing^oftheorderof dismissal from service are that A.P.Markfed was entrusted to procure 1,00,000 Metric Tons of Black Gram and 32,000 Metric Tons of Green Gram from the Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Societies (PACS) for NAFED at Rs.5400/- per Quintal on a commission basis of 2%. Accordingly, the 1"* petitioner was directed to procure the said quantities from the PACS. Pursuant thereto, agreements dated 08.06.2018 and 11.06.2018 were entered into between A.P. Markfed and the PACS.

¶63

In compliance with the agreements, and after following the prescribed procedure, 475.25 Metric Tons of Black Gram, worth Rs.2,56,63,500/- were procured from Allada PACS, and 5,552.7 Metric Tons of Black Gram worth Rs.2,98,45,800/- were procured from 230 farmers

¶64

5

¶65

through Challavanipalem PACS between 18.06.2018 and 25.06.2018. The said stock was kept in the custody of the respondent^{onbehalfofNAFED.} NAFED had remitted the amounts towards the cost of the stock and incidental charges. However, the same was not remitted to the^farmers.

¶66

Based on certain newspaper reports alleging irregularities^inthe procurement process, specifically, alleging that the^BlackGram had been purchased from a dealer instead of from farmers. The 1^‘ petitioner was thus issued the Charge Memo. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, at the time of procurement, the details^{ofindividualfarmers} including the extent of land. Survey Numbers, and Aadhaar details, were duly entered into the TABS. Hence, it cannot be alleged^{thatthestockwas} not purchased from the farmers.

¶67

The learned counsel for the petitioners further contends^thatthe entire procurement process was carried out in a transparent^mannerandno irregularities, as alleged by the respondent, were^{evercommitted.} It is further contended that though the Charge Memo alleged irregularities,^nowitnesses were examined during the enquiry to prove that the stock was purchased from dealers and not from farmers. It is further contended that the 1®* petitioner had furnished a detailed explanation dated 28.10.2019 to the Charge Memo, clearly explaining the procedure adopted by the petitioner in procuring the required stock. However, the same was not considered while passing the order of dismissal from service.

¶68

6

¶69

Respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that, based on the complaint and also on the adverse news item published in the newspapers, the District Collector, Srikakulam, ordered for an enquiry on 21.07.2018. The Joint Collector, Srikakulam vide Proceedings in RC.No.2118/2018, dated 18.09.2018, submitted a report to the District Collector after conducting an enquiry and stated that no procurement was done in the PACS centres and some of the

¶70

stock was procured from the middlemen by creating false documents in collusion with the MARKFED and the Society Employees. It is further contended that i in pursuance thereof, the District Collector initiated the disciplinary action against the 1 petitioner and other employees who were involved and committed irregularitiesⁱⁿ i procuring the Black Gram from the middleman. Based on the same, the 1 petitioner was placed under suspension on 27.07.2018, charges were framed against the 1 petitioner, and a Charge Memo was also served on the 1®‘ petitioner on 16.10.2018. And after affording an opportunity, the 1"‘ petitioner was terminated from the services of MARKFED.

¶71

Considered the rival submissions.

¶72

The charges against the 1 petitioner are that the A.P.Markfed was designated as a nodal agency for procuring Black Gram and Green Gram from farmers to ensure them the minimum support price. The 1®' petitioner was entrusted with the responsibility of procuring the same; however, he was alleged to have failed to provide wide publicity for procurement and did not

¶73

7

¶74

establish procurement centres near Agricultural Market^{Committees(AMCs)} where storage facilities were available. Instead, procurement^wasmadefrom remote locations inaccessible to farmers, where there were no adequate storage facilities. It is further alleged that procurement^{wasnotmadefrom} j farmers but from private traders, thereby pocketing^{thedifferencebetweenthe} minimum support price and the prevailing market price.^{Thelearnedcounsel} for the 1 petitioner argues that the stock so procured was stored in a godown. The 1®* petitioner was never involved in making payments^tothe farmers. The responsibility of disbursing the amounts^{tothefarmerswaswith} A.P. Markfed; however, it did not make the payments.^{Thefarmershavethus} approached this Court seeking payment for the stock purchased from them. It is only after this Court had directed the respondent^{toremitthesumsthatthe} payments were made to the farmers. Therefore, the allegation that the 1®‘ petitioner was monetarily benefited out of the^{saidtransaction} is baseless. The basis for issuance of the Charge Memo is only a newspaper report. From the material, it appears that the respondent did not^{examinethetraderfrom} whom the petitioner allegedly procured the stock. For non-payment of the amount towards the procurement, the farmers have approached^theCourt seeking payment. Therefore, the allegation that the 1®‘ petitioner had procured the stock from the middlemen, without examining any witness and coming to such a conclusion, is perverse and without giving any finding as to the financial irregularity that the 1 petitioner committed and the act that has

¶75

8

¶76

benefited him monetarily, and imposing a punishment of dismissal from service is grossly disproportionate to the charges framed. 14. As noted above after filing of the writ petition, the writ petitioner died and his legal representatives are brought on record, Having regard to the submissions advanced, this Court deems it fit to set aside the impugned proceedings holding that imposing the punishment of dismissal from service as grossly disproportionate to the charges framed against the 1®‘ petitioner, further having regard to the fact that the 1^' petitioner is no more, the respondent is directed to pay the back wages computed at 50% and grant all consequential benefits to the 2"^' and 3^^ petitioners. 15. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶77

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand

¶78

closed.

¶79

//TRUE COPY//

¶80

Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶81

SECTION OFFICER

¶82

To,