IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 25944 of 2009 Between: P.Kanakaiah . .Petitioner And The Nalgonda District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, rep. By its Chief Executive Officer, Nalgonda and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.25944 OF 2009 ORDER : The petitioner herein is working as Assistant Secretary in the 2nd respondent-society. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 24.11.2009, placing the petitioner under suspension with immediate affect. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The material on record shows that on the basis of reports received from the Branch Manager, Nidamanur regarding misappropriation of funds of the 1st respondent-bank, an enquiry was conducted by the Assistant General Manager/Nodal Officer during which, certain financial irregularities allegedly committed by the writ petitioner while working as Assistant Secretary of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Venigandla came to light. Pursuant thereto, an inspection was conducted under Section 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and surcharge proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Society, Miryalaguda under Section 60(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 against the writ petitioner alleging that he was liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,10,068/- under various heads. Having regard to the allegations made against the petitioner and surcharge proceedings initiated against him, the Chief Executive Officer of the 1st respondent-Bank directed the 2nd respondent- society to place the petitioner under suspension immediately as the continuous of his services is prejudicial to the interests of the society and pursuant thereto the 2nd respondent society passed a resolution dated 24.11.2009 resolving unanimously to place the petitioner under suspension. Accordingly, the President of the 2nd respondent-society passed the impugned order dated 24.11.2009 placing the petitioner under suspension. The said order is challenged in this writ petition contending, inter alia, that the impugned order which was passed merely on the directions of the 1st respondent without independent application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case was arbitrary and illegal. It is also contended that since the petitioner has already been transferred from Venigandla society and at present he is working in the 2nd respondent society, the impugned suspension is unwarranted. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of Commissioner of Police, Bombay V. Gordhandas Bhanji[1]. There can be no dispute about the well settled principle of law that the statutory authority has to exercise the discretion conferred under the statute independently, but not at the influence of the superior authority. However, this is a case, where it was found during the statutory inspection held under Section 52 of the Act that the petitioner had indulged in misappropriation of funds of the 1st respondent while working at Nidamanuru branch. The said fact was intimated to the 2nd respondent by the 1st respondent by letter dated 25.10.2009, observing that continuance of the petitioner’s services in any society is prejudicial to the interests of the society. It is true that the 2nd respondent was advised to place the petitioner under suspension to initiate disciplinary proceedings expeditiously. However that does not mean that the impugned order of suspension was passed by the 2nd respondent without exercising the statutory discretion conferred on it. As noticed above, a resolution has been passed by the 2nd respondent society resolving unanimously to place the petitioner under suspension, which shows that the said decision was taken on application of mind to the nature of the allegations against the petitioner. Hence, merely because the 1st respondent in his letter dated 25.10.2009 opined that it would be advisable to place the petitioner under suspension, it cannot be said that the impugned order was passed by the 2nd respondent mechanically without application of mind. Hence, there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent failed to exercise the discretion conferred under law independently. The other contention that since the petitioner is at present working in a different society, the impugned suspension is unwarranted is not a justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned order having regard to the gravity of the allegations against the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition which is devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. No costs. ________________ JUSTICE G.ROHINI December 09, 2009 KSH [1] A.I.R.(39)1952 Supreme Court 16