HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.2295 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner, a Paid Secretary in Edarada, Mamidikuduru Mandal, East Godavari District, assails the proceeding dated 31.12.2009 terminating him from the said post with immediate effect. This Court had occasion to deal with a similar fact situation in W.P.No:8815 of 2001 which was allowed by order dated 12.11.2010. Reference was made therein to the Bye Laws which have application to the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies and more specifically, Bye Law No:12.2 which categorically states that no punishment should be inflicted on any employee without proper enquiry in writing and providing him a reasonable opportunity to explain his case and defend himself. These Bye Laws, having been issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, partake of statutory flavour and are binding on the P.A.C.Ss. Further, as per the said Bye Laws, the Chairman of the PACS is not the competent authority for removing the Paid Secretary from service. Smt. Bobba Vijayalakshmi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent PACS, stated that the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner was based on the enquiry held under Section 51 of the A.P. Co- operative Societies Act, 1964. This Court is however not inclined to accept that such enquiry can be the foundation for the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner. As per the Bye Laws, the respondent P.A.C.S was bound to hold a disciplinary enquiry into the misconduct and only thereafter resort to such action through the competent authority. In the present case, this procedure has not been followed. Sri G.V.Shivaji, the learned counsel for the petitioner, further stated that when the petitioner sought to submit his explanation to the show cause notice issued to him, the same was not received by the Chairman of the respondent PACS. The envelope bearing the endorsement ‘reject’ is produced in support of this contention. Viewed from any angle, the action of the respondent P.A.C.S in terminating the petitioner from the post of Paid Secretary under the impugned proceeding cannot be sustained. It was passed not only in violation of the statutory procedure but also in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner will not claim any monetary benefit from the fifth respondent-society. The said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record. The writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceeding dated 31.12.2009 issued by the Chairman of the respondent P.A.C.S terminating the petitioner from the post of Paid Secretary. It is needless to observe that the petitioner shall be reinstated immediately with all consequential benefits, as the impugned order is set aside. After reinstatement, the case of the petitioner shall be considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.67, Agriculture and Co-Operation Department, dated 20.02.2009. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall not claim any monetary benefits from the fifth respondent-society by virtue of this order. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 17th June 2011 dr