S KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An important point needs to be decided in this writ petition. The pleadings are complete and the Counsel for the parties were heard at length. Certain facts are admitted and a controversy is raised between the admitted facts of the case.

(2.) The petitioner was working with the respondents as in charge Manger, Krishna District Co-operative Central Bank, Nagayalanka Branch and he retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31 st May, 1997. After his retirement, on 21 st June, 1997 a Memo was sent to him by which certain charges were levelled against him and a charge-sheet was framed and he was asked to explain his conduct. He sent his reply to the show cause notice but no further action has been taken in the matter. When the petitioner was waiting to get his pensionary benefits like Gratuity, Provident Fund/ Leave salary, Group Insurance etc., he came to know that an order has been passed by the respondents on 17-7-97 by which the Supervisor of the concerned society Sri S. Koteswara Rao was placed under suspension. This order has ben passed by District Co-operative Officer, Krishna. The main order does not mention petitioner, but while endorsing a copy to the General Manager, Krishna District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Machilipatnam a request has been made to him in the following terms; "to stop all pending pensionary benefits in respect of the then Branch Manager Sri K.Krishna Murthy (Retd.) till the disciplinary process is finalised." On the basis of this endorsement the pensionary benefits have been stopped to the petitioner and while filing this Writ Petition the petitioner has challenged the endorsement hereinabove mentioned and also the initiation of enquiry against him under the Co-operative Societies Act.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the respondents has not been able to justify as to under what law the endorsement was made in the letter dated 17-7-1997. There is no order passed by any competent authority by which the pensionary benefits could have been stoped from being paid to the petitioner. While exercising his powers the District Co-operative Officer, Krishna placed under suspension a person who was the Supervisor of the society at the relevant point of time. While placing that officer under suspension he gave certain reasons for passing such an order, but while making the endorsement to the General Manager he requested him to stop all pensionary benefits to the petitioner. An officer who is retired from service does not expect to be treated in the way he has been treated now and the General Manager was also not within his powers to stop the payment of pensionary benefits in the absence of a valid order by anybody. In any case the District Co-operative Officer could not direct the General Manager to stop the pensionary benefits to the petitioner. Therefore, he did not pass any order but made a request which was manifestly illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, this Court has no difficulty in quashing the endorsement in the letter dated 17-7-1997 and direct the concerned General Manager to pay the pensionary benefits to the petitioner in accordance with law.