IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14740 of 2008 Between: Kamisetty Nageshwara Rao S/o.Satyanarayana Murthy R/o.b.Savaram,Razole Mandal, East Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of AP.,rep.by its Secretary, Co-operation Department,. Secretariat,Hyderabad 2 The District Co-Operative Officer, East Godavari District Kakinada 3 The B.Savaram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Rep.by its President B.Savaram, Razole Mandal, East Godavari District .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ order or direction particularly a writ in the nature of mandamus to declaring the impugned action of the 3rd respondent Society in issuing the impugned proceedings dated 8.8.2006 by passing a resolution on 28.7.2006 pursuant to the report of the 2nd respondent inRc.No.1056/2004A dated 19.4.2006 in suspended the petitioner from the service without proper enquiry is highly illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BOKKA SATYANARAYANA & KAMLA SEELAM B. Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2.: GP FOR COOPERATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3:MR. CHANDRASEKHAR ILAPAKURTI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Kamisetti Nageswara Rao assailing the proceedings dated 08.08.2006 issued by the B.Svaram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd, rep. by its President-3rd respondent whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been kept under suspension. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in 3rd respondent Society on 01.01.1983. On 28.07.2006 the 3rd respondent-Society passed resolution placing the petitioner under suspension on the ground of misappropriation of Rs.6,52,000/-. 3. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 10.09.2008. An interim order came to passed on the even date vide WPMP No.19052 of 2008, which reads as hereunder: “Prima facie it appears that after conducting enquiry under Section 60, the petitioner was not found guilty and, therefore, his name was not shown in the report of 2nd respondent dated 13.10.2006. Under these circumstances, the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to consider reinstatement of the petitioner into service, if there are no legal hurdles in their way, and pass appropriate orders within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner.” 4. 3rd respondent entered appearance and filed WPMP No.30766 of 2008 with a prayer to dismiss the writ petition by recording compliance of the order dated 10.09.2008 passed in WPMP No.19052 of 2008. 5. It is stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent Society that the petitioner has been reinstated into service on 13.10.2008 and accordingly, the writ petitioner joined in service on 20.10.2008. 6. The writ petitioner moved WPMP No.2215 of 2009 with a prayer to direct the respondents to pay salary with all consequential benefits including arrears from 08.08.2006 to till date forthwith, by allowing to sign in the attendance register of the 3rd respondent Society. 7. When the WPMPs came up for consideration, I deem it appropriate to take up the writ petition itself for final disposal. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Society. 9. The relief sought for in the writ petition is as follows: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction particularly a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS to declare the impugned action of the 3rd respondent Society in issuing the impugned proceedings dt.8.8.2006 by passing a resolution on 28.07.2006 pursuant to the report of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.1056/2004A, dt.19.4.2006 in suspending the petitioner from the service without proper enquiry is highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case.” The 3rd respondent Society filed WPMP No.30766 of 2008 with a prayer to dismiss the writ petition since the writ petitioner has been reinstated into service by revoking the suspension order. When once the writ petitioner was reinstated into service, the very purpose of filing the writ petition has become infructuous and no cause of action survives for further adjudication. If the writ petitioner is not paid salary or he is not permitted to sign in the attendance register consequent on his reinstatement, it is a separate cause of action for the petitioner to agitate the same under a separate proceeding. 10. Since the writ petitioner has already been reinstated into service by revoking the suspension order impugned in the writ petition, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous reserving liberty to the writ petitioner to initiate separate proceedings if he is so advised with regard to non- payment of salary or not permitting him to sign in the attendance register. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:09th February, 2009. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KSRANI}