IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No.17177 OF 2011 Between: V.S.N. Raju .....PETITIONER AND The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Commissioner for Cooperation & Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Mojamjahi Market Road, Hyderabad And two others. ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Writ Petition No.17177 OF 2011 ORDER: 1 This Writ Petition is filed to declare the inaction on the part of the Management of the second Respondent Bank in deciding the appeal filed against proceedings Ref.Estt/2004-05 dated 29.04.2004 of the General Manager- cum-The Chief Executive Officer, The Hyderabad District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd, forfeiting an amount of Rs.1,48,000/- from the leave salary of the petitioner as illegal and for a consequent direction to the Respondents to release the said amount forthwith. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the service of the Hyderabad District Cooperative Central Bank Limited and retired from service on 30.04.2004 as Branch Manager, A.S.Rao Nagar branch, Malkajgiri R.R. District after putting in 39 years of service. It is his case that on the ground that he was negligent in conducting verification of vouchers at Sanathnagar Branch of the said Bank as instructed by the bank authorities and thereby causing loss of Rs.16.87 lacs to the Bank, he was imposed punishment of withholding by forfeiture of his leave salary for an amount of Rs.1,48,000/- from his terminal benefits vide proceedings Ref.Estt/2004-05 dated 29.04.2004 of the General Manager. It is his case that though the enquiry officer also found him guilty of minor misconduct, imposing punishment of withholding by forfeiture of the leave salary amount of Rs.1,48,000/- is beyond the competence of the Respondents and therefore the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. The petitioner further stated in his affidavit that aggrieved by the impugned proceedings, he preferred an appeal before the Management of the Bank within the period of thirty days. But the appellate authority has not passed any orders on his appeal by keeping the same in cold storage for seven years. Hence this Writ Petition. 4 Admittedly, aggrieved by the impugned proceedings of the third Respondent, the petitioner seems to have preferred an appeal before the third respondent with regard to the same cause of action i.e. imposition of punishment against him. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be permitted to prosecute two parallel proceedings in respect of same cause of action. If appeal is pending with the appellate authority, appropriate orders have to be passed on the appeal. 5 Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the third Respondent to take appropriate decision on the appeal filed by the petitioner if pending and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. No order as to costs. ____________ K.C. BHANU, J 01.07.2011 Kvsn