B ERANNA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An Executive Secretary of the Co-operative Society is questioning the legality of the orders passed by the Co-operative Society placing him under suspension in this Writ Petition. The petitioner himself admits in para 2 of his affidavit that during his tenure there were many changes in elected persons as a result of which he could not execute his work according to the duties entrusted to him to the satisfaction of successful managements. The writ petitioner claims that once he was appointed as the Secretary and was allotted to Co-operative Society, he became a permanent employee and he could not be changed "at any costs" according to the whims and fancies of the members of the Executive Committee of the Society. According to him, bye-law No. 12 of special bye laws relating to the service conditions of employees of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies, specifically provided that while placing the Secretaries under suspension, the society should consult the District Level Committee and in the absence of such consultation, the same was illegal and void.

(2.) Proceedings bearing Rc.No.5987/95-C dated 18-12-1995 issued under the signature of the District Co-operative Officer, Kurnool, was communicated to the writ petitioner stating therein that in view of the circumstances reported by the President of Kotekal LSCS, and to avoid the dislocation of the work of the society, the Secretary M.C. Rangappa of Kadivella P.A.C.S., was temporarily kept in additional charge of the post of the Secretary, Kotekal LSCS until further orders. He was directed to attend to the work of Kotekal L.S.C.S. in addition to his normal duties at Kadivella P.A.C.S. and that he should assume charge at Kotekal LSCS with immediate effect and report compliance.

(3.) The respondent No. 6 (President of the 6th respondent Society) in his counter affidavit dated 30-1-1996 alleges that the performance of the writ petitioner was not at all satisfactory and, therefore, notice dated 24-10-1995 was issued calling upon him to hand over the cash book and other records for his (President of 6th respondent Society) scruitiny and also to convene the Committee meeting as per schedule. He was also directed to produce the receipts and expenditure registers for his perusal. But the Secretary did not care either to reply to the notice or to act according to the directions given to him. The Managing Committee of the 6th respondent Society, therefore, passed a resolution dated 17-11-1995 placing the writ petitioner under suspension pending enquiry. It was also resolved that the writ petitioner should be directed to hand over the records and registers of the Society to the Supervisor of the Society. However, the writ petitioner in spite of the resolution having been communicated to him, did not comply with the directions given to him and in fact he refused to receive the order sent to him by registered post with acknowledgement due. A letter was, therefore,addressed to the 3rd respondent - District Co-operative Officer, Kurnool requesting him to ratify the action taken by the society. A charge memo dated 22-11-1995 was issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause why action should not be taken against him for the lapses committed by him as shown in the charge memo. But the writ petitioner did not care to give any reply to the charge memo. Under these circumstances, therefore, according to the respondent No.6, with a view to safe-guard the interest of the society they had to resort to the locking of the office of the society. He also expressed his concern in his counter affidavit that if the writ petitioner was allowed to continue as Secretary of the Society, it was likely to lead to several complications. He also challenged the maintainability of the writ petition.