IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12048 of 2008 Between: A.S Bhaskara Rao S/o.Seshagiri Rao Primary Agrl.Coop.Society A.Vemavaram Amalapuram E.G District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.Vemavaram P.A.C.S. Rep.by its President A.Vemavaram Amalapuram(M), East Godavari District 2 The Divisional Coop Officer Amalapuram,East Godavari District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus the action of the 1st respondent in not admitting the petitioner to duty as secretary of the society following an order of reinstatement vide proceedings dt.16- 05-2008 issued by the District Level Committee in the Appeal preferred by the petitioner as illegal arbitrary and unjustified. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.UDAYA BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was working as a Paid Secretary in the Vemavaram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society. He was dismissed from service through order, dated 03.10.2005, on disciplinary grounds. Aggrieved thereby, he filed W.P.No.22795 of 2005 before this Court. The writ petition was disposed of on 01.02.2007, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal before the District Level Committee. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Level Committee. When the appeal was pending, proceedings were initiated under Section 60 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short “the Act”) for recovery of a sum of Rs.83,000/- from the petitioner. The said amount was paid by the petitioner. The petitioner brought this development to the District Level Committee and has also filed an affidavit to the effect that, in case he is reinstated into service, he would not claim any arrears of salary or other benefits. Taking into account the payment of the amount by the petitioner as well as the affidavit filed by him, the District Level Committee passed an order, dated 16.05.2008, directing that the petitioner be reinstated into service as Secretary, duly denying him other benefits. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been reinstated so far. Heard Sri P.Udaya Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the respondents were served with notices, they have not chosen to enter appearance. The petitioner availed the remedy of appeal, feeling aggrieved by the order of dismissal. It appears that a report in an enquiry caused under Section 51 of the Act constitutes the basis for the dismissal of the petitioner as well as initiation of surcharge proceedings under Section 60 of the Act. The petitioner paid the amount charged against him. Apart from that, he filed an affidavit before the appellate authority undertaking to forego all his claims in the form of back wages, continuity of service etc. Impressed by these developments, the appellate authority granted the relief of reinstatement of the petitioner into service. A valid right had accrued to the petitioner on the strength of the order, dated 16.05.2008, passed by the appellate authority. The first respondent cannot deny the same to the petitioner, unless the order of appellate authority has been assailed by it in any competent forum. Inasmuch as the order of the appellate authority is of recent origin, it cannot be said that there was any undue delay on the part of the first respondent. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed directing that the first respondent shall reinstate the petitioner into service as Secretary in the minimum of the scale without any continuity of service within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, unless the order of the District Level Committee, dated 16.05.2008 has been stayed or suspended by any Court or authority. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:08.07.2008 GJ