Dismissed

The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, v. Sri K.Sivarama Prasad

Telangana HC13 Sept 2005WA/429/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Appeal filed by a Cooperative Society challenging a Single Judge's order allowing a dismissed employee's writ petition was dismissed. The Court found no merit in the appeal as the lower order was justified for not holding an enquiry before termination.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded; the Single Judge's order remains intact.

The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Vs Sri… — Cooperative Societies | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI

¶2

¶3

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. LAKSHMANA REDDY

¶4

WRIT APPEAL NO. 429 of 2005

¶5

Dated 13^th September, 2005

¶6

Between:

¶7

The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Malkapuram, Tullur Mandal, Guntur District, represented by its Person-in-charge.

¶8

Appellant.

¶9

And:

¶10

1. Sri K.Sivarama Prasad, son of Sulbbaia, resident of Gudivada village, Tenali Mandal, Gulntur District and others.

¶11

Respondents.

¶12

JUDGMENT : (Per the Honourable Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari)

¶13

This writ appeal is filed by appellant aggrieved by the order in W.P. No: 25569 of 2000, under which the learned single Judge allowed the same by setting aside the order impugned therein.

¶14

The appellant is the 2^nd respondent and the respondents herein are the writ petitioner and respondents 1 and 3 respectively in the writ petition. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the writ petition for the sake of convenience.

¶15

The writ petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to declare the action of respondents 1 and 2 in dismissing the writ petitioner from service as illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to reinstate him into

¶16

service with back wages and all other benefits. The learned single Judge having observed that as there is no enquiry in respect of the allegations of the basis made for dismissal of the writ petitioner, it is too late in the day to say that the Management can take recourse the said proceeding without proper enquiry, allowed the writ petition by setting aside the order impugned. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been preferred by the 2^nd respondent.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel, perused the order impugned and the entire material available on record.

¶18

The case of the writ petitioner in a nutshell is that he worked as Paid Secretary for some time with good track of record and due to ill-health, he applied for leave and thereafter, he reported for duty on 11-5-1999, but he was not permitted to join the duty and ultimately, he was served with the order impugned therein terminating his services.

¶19

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the writ petition by an employee of a Co operative Society, is not maintainable and that the petitioner has misappropriated huge amounts of the society and therefore, his services were terminated and the procedure as per the bye laws of the society was followed before dismissing the petitioner. Hence, it cannot be said that the dismissal of the petitioner is against the procedure and the order of the learned single Judge, is liable to be set aside.

¶20

On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that without any enquiry conducted against the writ petitioner, his services were terminated and therefore, the said action is against the principles of natural justice and as such, the order of the learned single Judge, is justified and it does not warrant any interference by this Court.

¶21

A perusal of the record goes to show that no enquiry has been conducted by the respondent before terminating the petitioner. In such a situation, the learned single Judge is justified in setting aside the order impugned therein while giving liberty to the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings and take appropriate action in accordance with law after affording proper notice and opportunity and conducting enquiry as contemplated under law. If that being the case, We feel that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned herein. Hence, We see no merits in

¶22

this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶23

In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.

¶24

__________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari

¶25

Date : 13^th September, 2005.

¶26

______________________ Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy

¶27

Dvs/Gurc.

¶28

HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI

¶29

¶30

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. LAKSHMANA REDDY

¶31

WRIT APPEAL NO. 429 of 2005

¶32

(Judgment delivered by the Honourable

¶33

Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari)

¶34

Dated 13^th September, 2005

The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, v. Sri K.Sivarama Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, v. Sri K.Sivarama Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Venkateshwara Gupta, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh rept. by its Secretary

Govt. of a.P, Vs Shri P. Mallikarjuna Rao

The Asst.Works Manager Vs Abdul kareem, S/o Abdul Sattar, D.No.76-2-47

A.P.State Warehousing Corporation rep., by its Vs a.P.Warehousing Staff Union, Regd.No.430, rep., by its

N. Sreedhar, S/o. Late Sri. Veera Swamy, Vs State of A.P. Rep .by its Principal Secretary

The Special Secretary to Government of A.P. Vs Dr. P. Aswini Kumar