IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.20769 of 1999 Between: C.V.Krishna Murthy. … Petitioner And The Joint Registrar/District Co-operative Officer, Kurnool and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Chakravarthy for Sri O.Manohar Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: None. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 25-9-1999 issued by respondent No.1 to respondent No.3-Koilakuntla Co- operative Town Bank, Koilakuntla, Kurnool District, (for short “the Bank”) to terminate the services of the petitioner. Heard Sri Chakravarthy, counsel representing Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appeared for the respondents despite showing their names in the cause list. The petitioner claimed to have applied to the Bank for appointment to the post of Chief Executive Officer- cum-Managing Director. By order dated 5-10-1996 the petitioner was appointed to the said post and, according to the petitioner, his services were regularized with effect from 1-4-1997. Respondent No.1 by the impugned proceedings addressed to the President of the Bank, opined that the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Chief Executive Officer is against the special bye-laws of the Bank and in gross violation of the procedure prescribed for such appointment. He, therefore, requested the latter to remove the petitioner immediately and recover the amount paid to him towards the salary. No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. One of the main pleas raised by the petitioner to invalidate the impugned order is that before passing the said order no notice was given to the petitioner. The impugned order is in the nature of intra-departmental correspondence. This order by itself does not have the effect of terminating the services of the petitioner. However, the President of the Bank, being subordinate to respondent No.1, is bound by the opinion expressed by the latter. Doctrine of fairness requires that before coming to a concluded opinion, respondent No.1 ought to have elicited the views of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, though the impugned order is in the nature of a correspondence between the two functionaries, still the interest of the petitioner is vitally affected. If the petitioner’s appointment is contrary to the procedure, the same can be terminated only after giving opportunity of fair hearing to him and considering his explanation. Therefore, the impugned order does not conform to the settled principles of natural justice and fair play. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is quashed. Respondent No.3-Bank shall be free to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioner, in accordance with law. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:29-12-2008 MNR