Disposed

D.Sekhar Reddy v. The General Manager, The District Co-op, Central Bank

Telangana HC16 Dec 2005WP/26234/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, Justice L.Narasimha Reddy directed a suspended society secretary to appear before the inquiry officer on a specified date without waiting for formal notice. The court also ordered the respondent to pay subsistence allowance with specific deductions and reserved the right to proceed in absentia.

What did the court decide?

Directed appearance before inquiry officer; ordered payment of subsistence allowance with deductions; authorized proceeding in absence if non-cooperative.

D.Sekhar Reddy Vs The General Manager, The District… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2005)

¶1

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.26234 of 2005

¶3

Dated: 16.12.2005

¶4

Between:

¶5

D.Sekhar Reddy S/o.late D.Bal Reddy R/o.H.No.6-46, Gandhinagar, Behind DCC Bank,

¶6

Kalwakurhty, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The General Manager,

¶10

The District Co-op. Central Bank Limited,

¶11

Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District and another.

¶12

.....RESPONDENTS

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

The petitioner was employed as a Secretary of the second respondent-Society. He was placed under suspension, through proceedings dated 17.10.2003. His grievance is that he is neither being paid subsistence allowance nor any enquiry is initiated against him.

¶15

On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the petitioner was served with a Charge Memo, dated 28.02.2004, and he had submitted

¶16

explanation on 10.08.2004. He stated that the Supervisor of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (PACS), Kalwakurthy, was appointed as an enquiry officer on 04.04.2005, and

¶17

in spite of notice, the petitioner is not participating in the enquiry. It is alleged that the subsistence allowance could not be paid to the petitioner on account of his nonavailability. A further contention is raised to the effect that the petitioner is due a sum of Rs.27,593/- to the society.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶19

The bye-laws of the second respondent-society empower the management to place its employees under suspension, pending enquiry into charges of misconduct. The second respondent passed an order on 17.10.2003, placing the petitioner under suspension, and the same was followed by a Charge Memo, dated 28.02.2004, holding that the petitioner misappropriated a sum of Rs.78,020/-. The petitioner submitted his explanation and states that no progress has taken place thereafter.

¶20

The respondents have clearly stated that the Supervisor of PACS, Kalwakurthy, was appointed as the enquiry officer on 04.04.2005. Though there is dispute between the parties as to the communication of the notice in the further proceedings, it is not necessary to go into such aspects, in detail. The petitioner can be required to appear before the enquiry officer on a specified date, and the respondents can also be directed to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner, duly making certain deductions.

¶21

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that:

¶22

a. the petitioner shall appear before the enquiry officer, namely Sri.K.Muthayala Reddy, Supervisor, PACS, Kalwakurthy, on 27.12.2005, without waiting for any formal communication and shall furnish his address for the purpose of further communication;

¶23

b. the second respondent shall calculate the amount of subsistence allowance payable to the petitioner, deducting a sum of Rs.1,000/per month towards the arrears recoverable from the petitioner i.e, Rs.27,593/-. The balance shall be paid to the petitioner on 27.12.2005 itself, on filing a declaration to the effect that he is not

¶24

gainfully employed ever since his suspension; and

¶25

c. In case the petitioner does not cooperate in the enquiry, it shall be open to the enquiry officer as well as the second respondent to proceed with the matter, in accordance with law.

¶26

d. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

16.12.2005

¶28

Note: Furnish C.C. in three days.

¶29

(B/O)

¶30

D.Sekhar Reddy v. The General Manager, The District Co-op, Central Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Sekhar Reddy v. The General Manager, The District Co-op, Central Bank

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

Katherapaka Lakshmi W/o Late K. Balaiah Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by

R.Santhaiah Vs The Station Director, All India Radio, Prasara Bharathi

V. Srinivasulu Vs Chief Managing Director

Shaik Hussain Vs The Commissioner of Fisheries, Hyderabad.

K.Venkata Vara Prasad, Vs The Government of a.P., Rep by its Secreatry

D. Bhupathi S/o D. Balaiah Vs The Superintending Engineer (Operation)