NUTULAPATI NAGA BASWESHWARA RAO Vs. JOINT REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is employed as a Secretary of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Minarpally Village, Nizamabad District, respondent No.2 herein. An A.C.B. raid was conducted in his house on 20.12.2010. Alleging that the petitioner possessed movable and immovable properties disproportionate to his known sources of income, they registered a case and arrested the petitioner. THE Joint Registrar/District Cooperative Officer, respondent No.1 herein, addressed a letter, dated 20.12.2010, to respondent No.2, in exercise of powers under Section 59 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ?the Act?) requiring it to place the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry. In compliance with the same, respondent No.2 passed a resolution, dated 21.12.2010, placing the petitioner under suspension. THE petitioner challenges the order, dated 20.12.2010, passed by respondent No.1 and the consequential resolution.

(2.) The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that the suspension of the petitioner was warranted on account of the fact that he was arrested by the A.C.B. It is stated that respondent No.1 is competent to pass orders under Section 59 of the Act.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner was arrested by the A.C.B. by alleging that he possessed movable and immovable properties disproportionate to his known sources of income. The Service Rules framed by the Government for different categories of employees and those framed by various agencies contain the provisions to the effect that whenever an employee is arrested on account of involvement in a criminal case, suspension must invariably be ordered. This is so even if the allegations against an employee in the criminal case are totally unrelated to the discharge of his functions in the employment. Such a provision does not exist in the byelaws framed by respondent No.2-Society. Obviously, situations of this nature were not contemplated. Section 59 of the Act confers power upon respondent No.1 to require a society to place an employee under suspension. The provision reads as under: