THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.22665 OF 2006 Dated: 02.09.2011 Between: S.Rajagopal …Petitioner And: Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Piler, Piler Mandal, Chittoor District, rep. by its President and others …Respondents. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.22665 of 2006 ORDER:- The point that is raised in this writ petition is whether the order placing the petitioner under suspension by the first respondent-society pursuant to its Managing Committee Resolution on the ground that he committed certain financial irregularities which resulted in monetary loss to the said society is valid. As will be presently seen this suspension has been ordered pending an enquiry. 2. Initially when this writ petition was taken up for hearing, Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner advanced his arguments and at that time, the learned counsel for the first respondent and also the learned Government Pleader were heard. Subsequently the matter was posted to 26-08-2011 and on that date the petitioner’s counsel was absent but the first respondent’s counsel appeared and he was further heard and the matter was taken up for judgment. 3. Before the point is taken up for decision, it must be mentioned here that the writ petition has been filed initially challenging only the aforesaid suspension order on various grounds. Subsequently the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.27963 of 2011 for amending the prayer in order to seek the relief that continuation of the petitioner under suspension even after his superannuation is without authority of law or the special by-laws relating to the service conditions of the first respondent-society and therefore to set aside the same and for a direction to the respondents to pay his arrears of salary and other benefits. Further the petitioner’s counsel in the course of arguments relied upon G.O.Ms.No.67, Agriculture & Cooperation Department, dated 20-2-2009 and claimed certain other reliefs on the ground that the Government have subsequently decaderised paid secretaries and permitted the District Cooperative Central Banks to take back their services and that the petitioner would also fall within the purview of the said G.O. and therefore the disciplinary action against him, if any, should be subjected to the disciplinary rules applicable to them and consequently the present suspension order should be set aside on that ground. Both these aspects will be referred to a little later. 4. The circumstances which led to the point relating to the suspension order referred to supra are these. At the relevant time, as disclosed from the pleadings of the petitioner and the first respondent-society, the petitioner was working as the paid secretary of the first respondent-society. It was detected that during his period the petitioner committed certain financial irregularities which resulted in a monetary loss to the first respondent-society and that he also misappropriated certain amounts. Accordingly, as per the resolution dated 1-9- 2006 of the Managing Committee of the first respondent-society, a decision was taken to place him under suspension and accordingly pursuant to that resolution the petitioner was placed under suspension by the impugned order which is said to have been served on him on 9-9-2006. 5. During the pendency of the writ petition, it is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the first respondent-society that the petitioner subsequently filed another writ petition i.e. W.P.No.27608 of 2007 challenging the enquiry ordered pursuant to the above suspension order and the said writ petition was dismissed on 28-2-2008 and that has become final and therefore the present writ petition is also liable to be dismissed. The order dated 28-2-2008 in W.P.No.27608 of 2007 reads as follows. “This writ petition was filed challenging the suspension of the petitioner from service on 04.09.2006. Now it is the contention of the petitioner that though the suspension order was passed on 04-09.2006, till date neither any enquiry officer is appointed nor any enquiry is conducted. 2. Under those circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, the respondents are directed to complete the enquiry within a period of three months from today and if no enquiry is completed by that time, the respondents shall reinstate the petitioner into service. 3. The writ petition is accordingly closed.” 6. The suspension order referred to in the order passed in the above writ petition is the very same order which is questioned in this writ petition and there is no dispute on this aspect. The order in the above writ petition would show that the subsequent enquiry ordered pursuant to the suspension order in question was also challenged in the said writ petition on various grounds, but the petitioner was unsuccessful. This is the first minus point for the petitioner in the present writ petition. 7. One plea which was taken by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the suspension order was not passed as a measure for holding an enquiry, but it was passed by way of punishment. This plea of the petitioner also stands belied by the fact that the order in the above subsequent writ petition would show that an enquiry was ordered but it was belated, but still this court rejected the plea of the petitioner in that writ petition. 8. Another contention which was raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the first respondent-society has no power to suspend him pending any enquiry. This court in V.P.Rama Rao V. District Cooperative Officer/Registrar, Vizayanagaram and others[1] (relied upon by the learned counsel for the first respondent-society) after considering Sections 59 and 31-A (15) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and Rule 72(3) of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1964 held that pending domestic enquiry the bank/society has also got the power to place its secretary under suspension. In fact it is the contention of the first respondent-society that the impugned suspension order was passed contemplating an enquiry into the financial irregularities committed by the petitioner. Thus in view of the above decision and also in view of the order in writ petition No.27608 of 2007 which shows that enquiry was already ordered it follows that the contention of the petitioner on this aspect cannot be accepted. 9. It may be noted that the impugned order is only a suspension order pending enquiry. The irregularities alleged against the petitioner relate to financial matters. The suspension order was already upheld by implication in the subsequent writ petition mentioned supra. Even otherwise it may be noted that the settled position is that this court should not interfere with an order placing an official under suspension pending enquiry unless it is vitiated by malafides. In the present case the petitioner is not able to show any malafides. Hence, it follows that there are no grounds to interfere with the suspension order in question and the point is decided against the petitioner. 10. Now coming to the W.P.M.P.No.27963 of 2011, it is the case of the petitioner that he has now attained the age of superannuation and therefore enquiry cannot be continued and suspension should be revoked. There is no force in this contention. It is settled position that disciplinary action can be continued even after superannuation. This apart this plea of the petitioner is outside the scope of this writ petition and the petitioner has to workout his remedies separately. Hence W.P.M.P.No.27963 of 2011 is dismissed. 11. Then turning to the relief claimed by the petitioner basing upon G.O.Ms.No.67, Agriculture & Cooperation Department, dated 20-2-2009, the said relief is also outside the scope of this writ petition and is based on an entirely different cause of action. Hence it shall be open for the petitioner to make his representation to the concerned authorities and they may take a decision with regard to the relief claimed by the petitioner under the above G.O. in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 2nd September, 2011 TJMR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.22665 OF 2006 2nd September, 2011 TJMR [1] 2004(3) ALT 263