THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 17250 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioner was appointed in the cadre of Secretary, in a Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, in the year 1980. After the post was decaderised, he was allotted to PACS, Tanukuwada, in the year 1987. Vide proceedings, dated 4.2.1993, he was transferred to the 6th respondent society. From there, he was sent on deputation in the year 2006, to the 5th respondent society. An inspection was caused, under Section 52 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act (for short “the Act”), as regards the functioning of 6th respondent society. A report was submitted, pointing out certain acts and omissions, on the part of the petitioner and certain other employees. Taking the same into account, the functional Registrar issued proceedings, dated 5.7.2008, under Section 59 of the Act. Accordingly, the 6t h respondent passed an order, dated 22.7.2008, placing the petitioner under suspension. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Smt. Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the proceedings, be it the one dated 5.7.2008 issued by the functional Registrar, or the one dated 22.7.2008, issued by the 6th respondent, are without authority and competence. She contends that the inspection was into the affairs of the 6th respondent society, and only an employee of that society could have been placed under suspension. According to her, the petitioner is now functioning as an employee of 5th respondent society, and if at all any one, it was the management of that society, which could have taken action against the petitioner, that too, if anything objectionable was noticed against him. She raised certain other contentions also. Sri S.Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 5 to 7, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner continues to be the employee of the 6th respondent, and mere fact that he is on deputation to another society, does not disentitle the management of the 6th respondent, to take action against him. He submits that the functional Registrar has exercised discretion, under Section 59 of the Act, on the basis of the report submitted under Section 52, and the petitioner put forward all his contentions, in the departmental enquiry. The petitioner is placed under suspension, in compliance with direction, issued under Section 59 of the Act. That provision confers power upon the Registrar, to require the managements of the concerned Cooperative Societies, to place an employee under suspension, in case, it is found in the course of audit inspector or enquiry, under the relevant provisions, that any irregularities were committed by any employee. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that any steps under Section 59 of the Act, can be taken, only during the course of enquiry, but not after culmination thereof, cannot be accepted. The expression “during the course of”, refers to the detection of acts or omissions, on the part of the employees, and it does not deal with the timing, at which the direction for suspension must be issued. It is only on submission of the report that the lapses, on the part of the employees, or elected management, can be noticed. Therefore, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in this regard, cannot be sustained. So far as the authority competent to place the petitioner under suspension, is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner, even now, is an employee of the 5th respondent, and he is only on deputation to the 6th respondent. Though in some cases, it may be competent for the borrowing department also, to take action against the employees on deputation, the principal employer always retains with it, the power to deal with the employees, whether serving the same organization, or on deputation to another. While sending its employee on deputation, a principal employer would never forego his power to control the activities of the employees. The suspension ordered against the petitioner is traceable to statutory powers. A detailed enquiry is contemplated, once the report of inspection is placed before the General Body and the nature of action is decided. In case, independent departmental proceedings are to be initiated, they need to be concluded, at the earliest, so that the prolonged suspension of an employee, does not result in unnecessary financial burden to the concerned society. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, upholding the impugned order, but directing the respondent No.6 to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 8th August 2008 PAN