IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 5381 of 2006 Between: Ch.V.V.Krishna Rao S/o.Rama Rao Pentapadu Mandal, W.G.District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Cooperation.Registrar of Cooperative societies, government of AP, Hyderabad 2 The District Cooperative officer, W.G.District at Eluru 3 The Divisional Cooperative Officer, Eluru, W.G.District 4 The Ravipadi PACS, Ravipadu, Pentapadu mandal W.G.District rep.by its president .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to take action against the 4th respondent for violating the service regulations issued by the 1st respondent and further action of the 4th respondent in straightway reverting the petitioner without an y notice or opportunity by removing the petitioner from the post of secretary as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the constitution of India apart from the provisions of AP cooperative societies Act and without jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.V.SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk in Alampuram Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society. The said Society was bifurcated and the petitioner was allotted to Ravipadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, the fourth respondent herein. He was also promoted as Secretary in that Society in the year 1997. Through his order, dated 16.03.2006, the third respondent had reverted the petitioner to a lower cadre. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that he was not put on notice, much less, any departmental enquiry was conducted. He also states that the resolution passed by the Society itself is vague as to the purport thereof. The fourth respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner resorted to several acts of irregularity and taking the same into account, the Society passed a resolution reverting him to the post of Clerk. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent. The impugned order on the one hand says that the petitioner is removed from the post of Secretary, and on the other, it directs that he is continued as a staff member. It is not clear as to whether the petitioner was reverted to any inferior post. Be that as it may, an employee cannot be reverted to a lower cadre without conducting any enquiry and without issuing any notice. Admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner before the impugned order came to be passed. On this short ground, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aide. It is left open to the respondents to take action against the petitioner, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:20.08.2008 kdl