A.V.V.S.N. MURTHY Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. AND THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner joined the service of A.P. State Cooperative Bank Limited, the 2nd respondent herein in the year 1975, as a Staff Assistant. Thereafter, he earned number of promotions, and in the year 1999, he was working as Assistant General Manager. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, alleging certain acts of omission and commission. A charge -memo dated 31 -07 -1999 was issued and on receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 06 -09 -1999, denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanation, the disciplinary authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, and a full -fledged enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer submitted a report, holding that the charges against the petitioner are proved. Taking the same into account, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 29 -01 -2005, imposing the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service. Challenging the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad, the 3rd respondent, under Regulation 41 of the Common Cadre Regulations, (for short 'the Regulations'), framed by the 2nd respondent. The 3rd respondent allowed the appeal through order dated 25 -05 -2010, setting aside the order of dismissal. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the 2nd respondent filed a revision under Section 77 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act'), before the 1st respondent. Through orders in memo dated 18 -09 -2010, the 1st respondent allowed the revision, and the order dated 25 -05 -2010, passed by the 3rd respondent was set aside. The result is that the order of dismissal passed against the petitioner is restored. The petitioner challenges the memo dated 18 -09 -2010.

(2.) THE petitioner submits that the revision under Section 77 of the Act is not maintainable, in view of the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Regulations. He further submits that the process of hearing of the revision was reduced to farcical levels, inasmuch as it took just two days from the date of filing of the revision for the 1st respondent to pass the order, bulldozing all the basic requirements under law. He also submits that no reasons whatever were furnished by the 1st respondent for setting aside the detailed and voluminous order passed by the 3rd respondent.

(3.) SRI G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges framed against the petitioner are in relation to the discharge of routine functions, as an officer of the Bank, and that the order of dismissal was passed, absolutely without any basis. He contends that the 2nd respondent has framed Regulations, which deal exclusively with the matters pertaining to the employees, and that the petitioner has availed the remedy under the Regulations. Learned counsel submits that the appellate authority has examined the matter, in detail, and demonstrated through threadbare discussion, as to how the charges framed against the petitioner were baseless, and ultimately allowed the appeal.