HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO W.A.No.846 of 2011 JUDGMENT (Per Sri Ghulam Mohammed, ACJ) The first respondent herein while working as Special Category Assistant in the District Cooperative Central Bank was placed under suspension followed by surcharge proceedings, on the ground that he being a Secretary/Chief Executive of the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Diguvamagam, failed to produce certain records during inspection done by the third respondent herein, who subsequently, reinstated the first respondent into service vide his order dated 30.05.2008, consequent upon the common judgment dated 09.04.2008 passed in C.T.A.Nos.58 of 2005 and 1 of 2006 wherein the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad allowed C.T.A.No.1 of 2006 setting aside the surcharge order passed against the first respondent. Aggrieved by the non-payment of subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension i.e., from 07.05.2001 to 30.05.2008, the first respondent filed W.P.No.5864 of 2010, whereby the learned Judge of this Court vide order dated 02.09.2011, allowed the writ petition directing that the second appellant herein shall pay subsistence allowance to the first respondent for the period during which, he was placed under suspension, in six by-monthly instalments and the first instalment shall be paid by 20.10.2011. Challenging the said order, the appellants, who are respondent Nos.3 and 4 in writ petition, filed the present appeal. 2. Heard Sri A.V.Sesha Sai, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Ch. Janardhana Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. We have perused the material on record. As per the Special Byelaws No.12(3)(b) of the Cooperative Societies and the Circular dated 12.02.1987, the authority competent to suspend the employee of the Society may sanction subsistence allowance to the employee placed under suspension 50% of the pay up to three months and 75% of the pay beyond three months on the last pay drawn, if the necessity for extension of suspension has not arisen directly as a result of delay attributable to the conduct of such employee. In view of the same, the first respondent, who was placed under suspension, cannot be denied the subsistence allowance irrespective of the gravity of the charge, as rightly held by the learned Judge in the impugned order. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, time for payment of first instalment granted by the learned Judge by the order impugned shall stand extended by one more month from today. Further, it is open to the appellants to finalize the surcharge proceedings, as expeditiously as possible. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, ACJ _________________________ NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO, J Date:08.11.2011 sj