IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26806 of 2007 Between: S.Narasimha Naidu S/o.Satyam Naidu Primary Agrl. Coop. Society, Cheedikada, Cheedikada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Gruhakalpa Buildings, Opp: Gandhinagar, Hyderabad. 2 The Joint Registrar-cum-District Coop. Officer, VUDA Complex, Siripuram Junction, Visakhapatnam. 3 The Divisional Coop Officer, Near Dimond Point, NGO Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam. 4 The Cheedikada Primary Agrl. Coop. Society, Cheedikada Village and Mandal, Rep. by its President. 5 The Primary Agrl. Coop. Society K.Kotapadu village and Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. rep. by its Person-in-Charge. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent in rejecting to join on the duty of the petitioner as Cadre Secretary vide its letter dt. 23.11.2007 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and against Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.V.N.NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26806 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner challenges the proceedings, dated 23.11.2007, through which, the 5th respondent rejected his claim for absorption into service. The petitioner was working as Paid Secretary in the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (for short “PACS”), Pathavalasa, from 1978 onwards. In 1998, he was deputed to the PACS, Cheedikada, 4th respondent herein, and the deputation subsisted till 01.05.2006. In between, he served in other societies also. Even while the deputation of the petitioner was in force, PACS, Pathavalasa and four other societies merged into PACS, K.Kotapadu, 5th respondent herein. The petitioner submitted a representation to the 5th respondent to absorb him into service. He stated that out of five Secretaries, that were working in the merged Societies, four were taken into service and he alone was left out. The 5th respondent stated that the petitioner cannot be treated as their employee and that even otherwise, his absorption would result in violation of Section 116 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) and other norms, inasmuch as the society is already overstaffed. A reference is also made to the disciplinary and criminal proceedings, that were pending against the petitioner. Certain other reasons were also mentioned. Sri V.V.N.Narayan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client is the employee of PACS, Pathavalasa, and since that society had merged into the 5th respondent, he ought to have been absorbed by the said society. He contends that the deputation of the petitioner to another society would not sever his relationship with his original employer and the reasons mentioned by the 5th respondent are untenable in law. Learned Government Pleader for Co-operation, appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri M.S.Ramchandra Rao, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, on the other hand, submit that the petitioner himself brought about the present situation, by moving from one society to another, without any consistency. According to them, even after cessation of deputation to the 4th respondent, the petitioner did not take necessary steps to get himself repatriated to any society and as of now, several proceedings are pending against him. Initially, the appointment of the petitioner was in the PACS, Pathavalasa in the year 1978. He faced the statutory, disciplinary and criminal proceedings, as an employee of that society. Based upon the findings recorded in an enquiry, under Section 51 of the Act, he was placed under suspension, in exercise of power under Section 59 of that Act. Even while the suspension was in force, the 1st respondent appears to have taken pity on him, with the intervention of the M.L.A. of Chodavaram, and favoured him with an order of reinstatement. The matter did not stop at that. On the pretext that the petitioner is facing threat to his life, he was posted as Secretary of P.A.C.S, Cheedikada, 4th respondent herein, on deputation. The directions, in this regard, were issued by the 1st respondent, vide letter, dated 24.04.1998. The 2nd respondent, in turn, issued orders of posting on 01.05.1998. The relevant portion thereof reads as under: “The commissioner for cooperation and Registrar of Coop Societies A.P., Hyderabad further stated there in, that the life of Sri S.Narasimha Naidu paid secretary is in danger as per the representation of the M.L.A. Chodavaram and felt it necessary for consideration to depute him a Society other than Pathavalasa PACS. In view of the directions issued by the Commissioner for cooperation and Registrar of Coop Societies, A.P., Hyderabad under reference fifth read above, Sri S.Narasimha Naidu is reinstated to duty as Secretary in Pathavalasa PACS under section 59(3) of the APCS Act 7 of 1964 and on reinstatement he is posted as Secretary of Cheedikada PACS as a special case on deputation for a period of one year or until further orders subject to the following conditions.” Hardly one comes across an instance of going out of way, to such an extent, to favour an employee, who is facing the charges of misappropriation and prosecution in the court. With the clout at his disposal, the petitioner got postings at two different places as he liked and ultimately, his deputation to the 4th respondent came to an end on 01.05.2006. By that time, PACS, Pathavalasa, stood merged with the 5th respondent along with certain other societies. The staff pattern and other facts were taken into account and employees to the extent permissible under Section 116 of the Act were continued. The petitioner did not approach his previous employer or its successor and kept himself busy to continue on deputation. When the question of giving posting to the petitioner arose, letter, dated 16.07.2007, was addressed by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent, duly narrating the relevant facts. Reference was made to the circular instructions, dated 29.08.2001, issued by the 1st respondent, the text of which reads as under: “posting of secretaries between two societies is purely administrative arrangements between the societies with the consent of individuals and employers i.e., lending and borrowing societies” It may be true that there was change in incumbency in the 1st respondent between 24.04.1998, on which date, the 1st respondent directed reinstatement of the petitioner, and 29.08.2001, when it was observed that transfers and postings of paid secretaries is a matter exclusively in the ambit of the societies. However, if one compares the said two proceedings, it clearly emerges that the only person responsible for this entire episode is the then Commissioner of Co-operation, who directed reinstatement of the petitioner; and nobody else. Having reinstated the petitioner and posted him to a different place on deputation, without ascertaining the views of the respective societies, the 1st respondent has taken a turn around in the year 2001, stating that the matter was purely in the realm of societies. There cannot be a better instance of farcical exercise of administrative and supervisory powers than this. An authority, which was supposed to guide the societies, has become instrumental, and is bringing about a chaotic situation and conferring benefit upon an otherwise erratic employee. The petitioner filed W.P.No.21593 of 2007 in the context of repatriation to the 5th respondent. An interim order was passed in W.P.M.P.No.28005 of 2007 on 11.10.2007, directing the 5th respondent to consider the application made by the petitioner for repatriation. In compliance with the same, the 5th respondent passed a detailed order, dated 23.11.2007. As many as 8 reasons were furnished, as to why the request of the petitioner cannot be acceded to. Apart from indicating the impermissibility of taking any further staff, in view of the provisions of the Act, the 5th respondent indicated the following reasons: 5. That you have worked previously in the Patavalasa PACS an amount of Rs.86,273.44 was misappropriated and surcharge orders were passed against you by deputy registrar Viskhapatnam and it is pending for recovery. 6. While you have worked as secretary in Pathavalasa PACS an amount of Rs.81,650/- was misappropriated by you and it was established during the course of Inspection under section 52 of the act ad surcharge orders pending against you for recovery. 7. A criminal case is also pending before the Hon’ble A.J.F.C.M Court Chodavaram on the ground of Misappropriation of funds in the Patavalasa PACS and the same is under trail. None of these reasons can be said to be irrelevant or untenable. When the 5th respondent-society is already having excess staff, it cannot be compelled to take the petitioner into service, with his background reflected in the above paragraphs. Even now, it is not clear as to what happened to the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him or for that matter, the criminal case instituted by the prosecution. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings, dated 23.11.2007, issued by the 5th respondent. However, it is left open to the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent with a proper representation. As and when, such a representation is made, the 1st respondent shall examine the matter with reference to the various proceedings, that emanated from his office vis-à-vis the petitioner, including those, dated 24.04.1998, and the circular instructions, dated 29.08.2001. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 04.04.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 26806 of 2007 Date: 04.04.2008 JSU