HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19629 of 2009 Date: 22.04.2010 Between: V. Mahalakshmi Naidu. … Petitioner And The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Government of Andhra Pradesh & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19629 of 2009 ORDER: Though the interlocutory applications are coming up for hearing, at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for hearing and is disposed of by this order. The petitioner is a Secretary of the 3rd respondent-Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (PACS). In the writ petition, he has questioned the order, dated 15th of August 2009, passed by the President of the Society, placing him under suspension, pending inquiry. The said order is passed, pursuant to the resolution of the Managing Committee of the 3rd respondent-Society in Resolution No.6-D, dated 15th of August 2009. The order of suspension is questioned mainly on the grounds that there is no direction by the competent authority under Section 59 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, and there is no approval to the order of suspension by the District Level Committee as per the bye-laws, and that no inquiry was conducted and that there is no material to come to the prima facie conclusion that there is misappropriation of an amount of Rs.2,80,725/- by the petitioner. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the respondents, denying the various allegations made by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that there is a press item on 10th and 11th of August 2009, with regard to misappropriation of amounts by the petitioner, and thereupon, the Chief Executive Officer of the District Co-operative Central Bank, Visakhapatnam, to which the 3rd respondent-Society is attached, has visited the 3rd respondent-Society on 11th of August 2009, verified the records and found that several irregularities were committed by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner has approved the debt waiver claims of non-members of the Society to a tune of Rs.2,80,725/-. It is stated that thereafter, the matter was informed to the District Level Committee of the Visakhapatnam District on 14th of August 2009, and after taking permission/approval of the District Level Committee, the impugned order is passed, pursuant to the decision of the Managing Committee. It is also stated that the District Collector, vide Letter in Rc.No.1810/2009 C (COOP), dated 26th of August 2009, requested the Commissioner for Co-operation and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, to conduct inquiry under Section 51 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 into the affairs of the District Co- operative Central Bank, Visakhapatnam, with special reference to the lapses in implementation of the Debt Waiver Scheme in its branches and concerned PACS, including the 3rd respondent-Society. Respondents have denied the allegation that without following the procedure prescribed in the bye-laws, the impugned order of suspension is passed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, that in view of the provisions under Section 31-A of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, the Managing Committee has the authority to suspend any officer only pursuant to the directions issued by the competent authority under Section 59 of the Act. It is further submitted that though there is no direction from the competent authority, the Managing Committee has passed the order of suspension without any authority. It is further submitted that there is no approval of District Level Committee for placing the petitioner under suspension and there is also no material to place the petitioner under suspension. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of The Guntur Weavers Co- operative Production and Sale Society Limited, rep. by its Directors Vs. The Assistant Director of Handlooms & Textiles, Guntur & others[1], and on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Special Category Deputy Registrar/District Co- operative Officer, Srikakulam Vs. Nookala Gavariah & others[2], and also on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad & others Vs. Sanjiv Rajan[3]. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri M.S. Ramchandra Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that in view of the reports published in the news papers, there was an inquiry by the Chief Executive Officer of the District Co-operative Central Bank, Visakhapatnam, and after making inspection, having prima facie found that there are irregularities committed by the petitioner, he has addressed a letter, dated 12th August 2009, to the President of the 3rd respondent-Society, to take necessary action against the petitioner. It is further submitted that thereafter, the Society has addressed the District Level Committee, and the District Level Committee, by proceedings, dated 14th August 2009, permitted the 3rd respondent-Society to place the petitioner under suspension, and subsequently, orders are passed, placing the petitioner under suspension. It is submitted that the power of suspension is exercised, pending inquiry, in terms of the bye-laws of the Society, but not pursuant to the directions under Section 51 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. Section 31-A of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 enumerates the powers of the Managing Committee of the Society. The powers of the Managing Committee under Section 31-A(1) to (23) are subject to provisions of the Act, Rules, bye-laws and the resolutions of the General Body of the Society. Though there is power for suspension conferred on the Society pursuant to directions issued under Section 59 of the Act by virtue of the provision under Section 31-A (15) of the Act, but the same is subject to the power conferred in the bye-laws. In that view of the matter, merely because there was no direction under Section 59 of the Act, it cannot be said that the 3rd respondent-Society has no authority to place the petitioner under suspension. I have also perused the bye-laws of the Society. Even as per Clause-6 of the bye-laws, there is power conferred on the Society to place an employee under suspension. The allegation of the petitioner that there is no approval from the District Level Committee also cannot be accepted for the reason that the District Level Committee, by proceedings dated 14th August 2009, permitted the 3rd respondent-Society to place the petitioner under suspension. The further argument of the learned counsel that there is no material and evidence in support of the allegation levelled against the petitioner, also cannot be accepted for the reason that pursuant to publication of reports in newspapers, an inspection was made by the Chief Executive Officer of the District Co-operative Central Bank and verified the records of the Society, and on such verification, it was found that the petitioner has wrongly extended the Debt Waiver Scheme in seven cases, to the tune of Rs.2,80,725/-, to non-members. In view of the said inspection and the communication by the District Chief Executive Officer of the Central Bank, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie material before the respondents for placing the petitioner under suspension. Though the learned counsel for petitioner has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of The Guntur Weavers Co-operative Poduction and Sale Society Limited (1 supra), but in the said judgment, a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the order issued by the Registrar, directing the Managing Committee of the Society to suspend an employee, in the absence of any audit under Section 50 of the Act, or an inquiry under Section 51 or an inspection under Sections 52 and 53 of the Act, is not proper. As much as the impugned order of suspension is not suspension pursuant to the directions under Section 59 of the Act, the judgment referred above will not render any assistance in support of the case of the petitioner. In the judgment in Special Category Deputy Registrar/District Co-operative Officer, Srikakulam (2 supra), a Division Bench of this Court has held that when there was a direction issued by the authority under Section 59 of the Act, in the absence of any inquiry under Section 51 of the Act, such directions are illegal. In the instant case, as there is no direction under Section 59 of the Act and the power of suspension is exercised independently as per the bye- laws of the Society, even the said judgment will not be helpful to the petitioner. Further reference is also made by the petitioner to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of U.P.Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (3 supra), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Court should not ordinarily interfere with suspension orders, unless passed mala fide and without there being even a prima facie evidence connecting the delinquent with the misconduct in question. In the present writ petition, having regard to the inspection made by the Chief Executive Officer of the District Co-operative Central Bank, and the letter, dated 12th August 2009, addressed by the said officer to the Society, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner. In view of the inspection and the letter addressed by the 3rd respondent and the permission granted by the District Level Committee, I do not find any illegality in the order of suspension, passed against the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. It is needless to observe that the order, dated 23rd September 2009 stands vacated. As much as it is stated that the inquiry officer is already appointed, the 3rd respondent-Society is directed to complete the inquiry as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 22nd April 2010 ajr [1] 1993 (1) AWR 1 [2] 2001 (1) ALD 410 (DB) [3] 1993 (3) SCC 483