THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1408 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy) This writ appeal is filed against order dated 10-9-2008 in W.V.M.P. No.2868 of 2008 in W.P.M.P. No.23972 of 2008 in W.P. No.18419 2008, whereby the learned single Judge vacated the interim order dated 26.08.2008 in W.P.No.18419 of 2008. 2. The appellant is the writ petitioner. He filed the writ petition questioning the order of his suspension by the respondent. The said order of suspension was initially suspended by the learned Judge by his order dated 26.08.2008. On the vacate stay petition filed by the respondent, the said order was vacated. 3. On hearing of Sri J.Ramachandra Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant, while conceding that the chairman has got the power of suspension of an employee pending enquiry into the grave charges however submitted that unless the provisions of Section 59 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 are satisfied, he is not empowered to exercise this power independently. 4. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court in SPECIAL CATEGORY DEPUTY REGISTRAR/DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM AND ANR. V/s. NOOKALA GAVARIAH AND ORS[1]. On a prima facie consideration of the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the provisions of Section 59 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 are not attracted to the present case, because no audit or enquiry has been held in the present case and therefore, the provisions of Section 50, 51, 52 or 53 of the Act are not attracted. Consequently, Section 59 of the Act has no application at all. In our prima facie view, the power to initiate the disciplinary proceedings vested in the employer is different from the power exercisable under Section 59 of the Act when the proceedings under Section 50, 51, 52 or 53 are initiated. 5. We have gone through the Judgment of the Division Bench relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant and we find that the said Judgment has no relevance to the present facts of the case because that was a case where the Deputy Registrar exercised his power under Section 59 of the A.P. Co- operative Societies Act, 1964 for suspending four employees in a society, despite the admitted fact that none of the proceedings under any of the provisions, namely; Sections 50, 51, 52 or 53 were initiated in respect of the said society. The Division Bench therefore held that unless proceedings were initiated in respect of that particular society, power under Section 59 of the Act could not have been invoked against the employees of that society. In this case, it is the disciplinary authority and not the registrar who invoked the power of suspension. Hence, the said Judgment has no relevance. 6. In this view of the matter, we do not fine any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. We make it clear that the observations contained in this order are meant only for the disposal of the writ appeal and they will not have any bearing on the final adjudication of the writ petition. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. ___________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY. 16-2-2009. I s L – K s H [1] 2001(1) ALD-410 (DB)