Dismissed

A.V.V.S.N. Murthy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC23 Nov 2023WA/141/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Writ Appeal, the court dismissed the appeal filed by a former bank officer aggrieved by the remittal of his service dispute to the State Government. The court upheld the Single Judge's order remanding the matter as valid, relying on a Punjab and Haryana Full Bench precedent regarding the State Government's revisional powers.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was dismissed without costs; no order as to costs.

A.V.V.S.N. Murthy Vs The Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

]N THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD^{DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND^{KUMAR SHAVILI} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 141 OF 2013

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of^{the Letters Patent againstthe orderdt.} 18.'12.2012 in WP.No.23528 of 2010^{on the file of the High Court'}

¶8

Between:

¶9

A.V.V.S.N. Murthy, S/o.A.Suryanarayana^{Murthy, aged 60 years,Class ll Officer} Fi/o. Laxminagar Colony,^Hyderabad.

¶10

,..APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Government of Andhra^{Pradesh,rep- by its PrincipalSecretary,} Agricultural and Co-operation^{(Coop.Vl) Department, SecretariatBuildings,} Hyderabad, 500062

¶13

The Andhra Pradesh^{State Co-operative Bank Ltd., rep. by its Managing} Director, Secretariat^{Buildings,Hyderabad 500001}

¶14

The Registrar of Co-operative^Societies, .Andhra^{Pradesh, Opp. Gandhi} Bhavan, Gruhakalpa, Hyderabad⁵⁰⁰⁰⁰¹

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

l.A. NO: l OF 2013(WAMP.^{NO:345 0F 2013)}

¶17

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High court may be pleaseddirect} the respondent-Bank to^{releasethe gratuity, leave encashment and other benefits} with held by suspending the^{orders in WP.No. 23528 of 2010 dt 18'12'20'12'}

¶18

¶19

IANO:1O F 2019

¶20

Petition u.der section^-r 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filec in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to amend the cause tire as 1. State of rerangana Rep. by its Principal secreta'y Agricurturar and cooperation (coop.VT' Department (Formerry The Government of Andhra pradesh) secretariat Buird,ngs, Hyderabad 500062 2. The Telangana ritate cooperative Bank Ltd., (Formerry The Andhra pradesh State Cooperative Bank Ltd.,) Rep. by its Managing Director, Troop Bazar, Hyderabad 5000(rl 3' The Registrar of cooperative societies Terangana state (formerly The Rerlistrar of cooperative societies Andhra pradesh) opp. Gandhi Bhavan Gruhakalpa, Hyderabad 500001in the W.A.No. 141 d2013 & l.A,s

¶21

I.A. NO: 2 OF 2O1:t M P. NO: 718 oF 2013

¶22

Petition under section 't 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired ir support of the petition, the High court may be preased to stay the proceedings l.etter No.12465t coop-Vl (1)12010 dated 20.2.2013 pending before the Governrnent in revision petition filed by the Znd respondent.

¶23

Counsel for the Ap,pellant : SRI G_.VtDyA SAGAR, Sr.Counset, rep., SMT.K.UDAYA SRt

¶24

Counsel forthe Respondents: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶25

The Court delivererl the following: JUDGMENT

¶26

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAIESHWAR RAO WR IT APP EAL No.14 oF2 13

¶28

.}UDGMENT: (PeT AKS,J)

¶29

This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 18.12.2072, passed in W.p.No.23528 of 2010 by a learned Singte Judge of this Court.

¶30

Heard Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

¶31

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant had contended that the appellant was working as Assistant General Manager with the respondent-Bank and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuinQ Charge Memo, dated 3L.07.1999, alleging misappropriation of funds. After conducting a detailed enquiry, for the proven misconduct in the enquiry, the disciplinary authority has imposed punishment of dismissal from service on the appellant vide order, dated 29.01.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, under Regulation 41 of Common Cadre Regulations framed by the respondent_Bank under the A.p. Co_

¶32

.l+'

¶33

2 AIiS,J & RRN,J W.A.No.l4l of 2013

¶34

operative Societies Act, 1964^{(for short, 'the Act'). Theappellate} authority, vide order,^{dated 25.05.2010,was pleased to allow the} appeal^pr,:ferred by the appellant^{by setting aside the order of} dismissal from service and^{directedthat the appellant be} reinstated into service.^{Aggrieved by the same, respondent-Bank} very strarrgely carried the matter^{to the State Governmenti.e.} respondent No.1, under Section⁷⁷ of^{the Act. Respondent No.1} vide Memt>, dated 18.09.2010,^{has allowedthe revision preferred} by the re:;pondent-Bank^{and was pleased to set aside the order,} dated 25.05.2010,^passed by^{the appellateauthority and directed} the appellitte authority to^{reconsider the matter. Aggrieved by the} same, the appellant has approached^{this Court by filing the subject} W.P.No.2352B of 2010 and a^{learned Single Judge of this Court,} vrUe impur;ned order, dated 18.12.2012,^{was pleased to set aside} the Memo, dated 18.09.2010,^{issued by the State Government,} but however, remanded the^{matterto the State Government to} pass orders afresh under Section 77 of the Act.^{Aggrievedby the} said order, dated^{18.12.2012, to the extent of remandingthe} matter to the State Government, the^{appellant preferredthe} present W'it Appeal.

¶35

Learred Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant^had further cr>ntended that when there are Statutory Service

¶36

¶37

J AKS,J & RRN,J W.A.No.l4lof 2013

¶38

¶39

¶40

Regulations in the form of Common Cadre Regulations, the question of respondent-Bank preferring a revision, under Section 77 of the Act, would not arise. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the Memo, dated 18.09.2010, but the learned Single Judge ought not to have remanded the matter to the State Government for fresh adjudication. When the appellant is challenging the power of the State Government in entertaining the revision, under Section 77 oF the Act, the question of remanding the matter to the State Government would not arise. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the impugned order, dated 1-8.12.2012, to the.exteht of remanding the matter to the State Government for fresh adjudication under Section 77 of the Act and allow the Writ Appeal.

¶41

On the other hand, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents had contended that as per Section 77 of the Act, the State Government has power to entertain a revision. Accordingly, respondent-Bank has carried the matter to the State Government under Section 77 of the Act. Learned Advocate General, in support of his submissions, relied upon a Full Bench judgment of the Honourable High Court of punjab and Haryana in Jasbir Singh and others v. Commissioner (Appeals),

¶42

¶43

AI.S,J & RRN,J w.A.No.14 tot 20I3

¶44

Jalandhar Division and othersl, wherein the^{Full Benchof} Honourabl<r High Court of Punjab and Haryana^{has held} that^the State Govr:rnment can entertain a revision from the order of^the appellate euthority. Learned Advocate General further^contended that Secti(,n 77 of the Act makes it very^clear that the^State Government has^power to entertain a revision.^{Therefore,the} learned Sirrgle Judge was^justified in remanding^{the matter} to^the State Gove:rnment to^pass orders afresh in^{accordance with law.} Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Appeal and the same^is liable to be dismissed.

¶45

This 3ourt, having considered the rival submissions made by the learne(l counsel for the^parties, is of the considered^{view that} the Full Be nch^judgment of the Honourable High Court of^Punjab and Haryarra in Jasbir Singh's case^(supra) would make it^clear that identi(ral Act to that of A.P. Co-operdtive Societies^{Act existsin} the States of Punjab and Haryana and that the State Government can entertain revision under Section 77 of the Act.^Therefore, when a Full Bench of High Court has held that the State Governmerrt has^power to entertain a^{revision against} the^order passed by the airpellate authority, the learned Single Judge was justified in remanding the matter to the State Government to pass

¶46

I Full Benchjud;ment of High Court ofPunjab and Haryana in C.W-P.No.49l12 of 1989, dated^14.0'7.2011.

¶47

5 AKS,J & RRN,J W.A.No.I41ot 2013

¶48

orders afresh. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, dated 18.12.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge in W,P.No.23528 of 20L0.

¶49

. With the above observations, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the State Government shall consider the case of the appellant and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, expeditiously, taking into account the present age of the appellant and that the Writ Appeal pertains to the year 2013. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50