THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.18199 OF 2010 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been preferred by a former Manager of the 1st respondent - District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Visakhapatnam. He has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings and by an order passed on 02.03.2005, he has been dismissed from service. Calling in question the said order, the wit petitioner has already instituted Writ Petition No. 20067 of 2005 in this Court which is still pending. But however, on the ground that the civil suit, O.S.No. 18 of 2002 instituted by the respondent bank on the file of the Court of the VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, seeking for recovery of Rs.1,35,75,230/-, to which suit the writ petitioner herein has been impleaded as the 5th defendant, was dismissed as against the 5th defendant, while decreeing the suit against the other defendants, including Union Bank of India, the writ petitioner contends that the alleged loss sustained by the 1st respondent bank is, in fact, liable to be made good by the other defendants to the suit, including Union Bank of India, but not by this petitioner and hence, the very premise upon which he has been subjected to disciplinary enquiry, is ill- founded. It is further stated that the writ petitioner has preferred a detailed representation on 24.12.2008 and followed it up on 10.02.2009 to the 2nd respondent Board of Management, which is the appellate authority. The said appeal/representation of the writ petitioner has not yet been decided by the Board. Therefore, the present Writ Petition has come to be instituted. I have heard Sri G.V. Shivaji, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Whether the decree passed by the civil Court in O.S.No. 18 of 2002 has attained finality or not, is a question, which is open for debate, inasmuch as an appeal is said to have been preferred against the same to this Court and the said civil appeal is still pending, but nonetheless, the appellate authority can look into the material including the judgment that has been rendered by the civil Court for taking an appropriate decision in the matter. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the representations/appeals said to have been submitted by the writ petitioner on 24.12.2008 and 10.02.2009, on or before 31.10.2010. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. --------------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 28th July 2010 ksld