THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21857 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner retired from the service of the District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Ongole, as Manager on 31-07-2010. However, his retirement benefits were not released. This writ is filed with a prayer to direct the respondent to release the said amount. The petitioner contends that the respondent withheld the retirement benefits on the assumption that he was found responsible in a report submitted by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies-cum-Sub Divisional Co-operative Officer, Chirala, under Section 52 of the A.P.Co- operative Societies Act, 1964 (for short “the Act”) pertaining to the recovery from the members of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies of Chirala and Pandillapalli branches of the respondent. It is submitted that except that his statement in his capacity as Supervisor at the relevant point of time was recorded, nothing was indicated against him. He also place reliance upon the letter, dated 08-06-2011 issued by the District Co- operative Officer, Ongole, to the effect that the name of the petitioner was shown wrongly in the proceedings under Section 60(1) of the Act. The respondent filed counter affidavit and it is stated that on the basis of the report submitted under Section 52 of the Act, the District Co- operative Officer himself initiated proceedings under Section 60 (1) of the Act against the petitioner and though the order ignoring the petitioner was passed, an appeal before the Co-operative Tribunal is pending against him. Heard Sri P.V.S.S.S.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.V.Nagabhushnam Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent. The only basis of withholding the retirement benefits of the petitioner is that his name has figured in the inspection report submitted under Section 52 of the Act. A copy of the report is made available. In clear terms, the inspecting official fixed the liability upon one Sri N.V.Raghavaiah, the then Manager and the name of the petitioner figured in the report only as a witness. Under wrong impression, the name of the petitioner was included in the proceedings under Section under Section 60 (1) of the Act. The District Co-operative Officer himself clarified on 08- 06-2011 stating that the name of the petitioner was shown in the said proceedings wrongly. At any rate, no liability was fixed against the petitioner in the proceedings under Section 60(1) of the Act. Viewed from any angle, the respondent cannot withhold the retirement benefits of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondent is directed to release the retirement benefits of the petitioner within four weeks from today. It is, however, made clear that in case any liability is fixed against the petitioner by the Appellate Tribunal, the release shall be subject to the same. ___________ 16-08-2011 Note: Issue C.C. in three days (B/o) Prv