HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7054 of 2001 ORDER: The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to quash the proceedings of the second respondent dated 24.07.2000 and 29.07.2000. The petitioner seeks a consequential direction to the second respondent to release all consequential benefits with interest. By the impugned proceedings dated 24.07.2000, the second respondent imposed on the petitioner the punishment of reduction to the minimum in the time scale of pay; directed that the suspension period be treated as earn leave to which the petitioner was eligible; the remaining period as leave on loss of pay; 15% interest on Rs.10,000/- overdrawn from his Saving Bank Account No.808 with the respondent-bank; and to pay back the D.R.D.A. subsidy of Rs.21,000/- with interest from the date of drawal till the date of remittance at 15% P.A., as drawn by his wife. By the proceedings dated 29.07.2000, the order of the second respondent was modified as under: “The next three grade increments of Sri B.Sesha Reddy Engg. Supervisor/Branch Manager-in-charge are stopped with cumulative effect with effect from 01.08.2000. Further it is ordered that the suspension period from 05.02.1988 to 19.03.1998 to be treated as earned leave which he is eligible and the remaining period of leave on loss of pay. Further, it is ordered that- 1. He is held liable to pay interest @ 15% on Rs.10,000/- overdrawn by him from his S.B.Account No.808 with Rapur Branch of NDCC Ltd., Rapur. 2. He is liable to pay back the D.R.D.A. subsidy of Rs.21,000/- with interest from the date of drawal to the date of remittance @ 15% drawn by his wife Smt B.Siddamma.” It is this order which is the subject matter of challenge in this Writ Petition. The petitioner does not allege violation of any statutory provision much less under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. What is under challenge in this Writ Petition is the punishment imposed on him, pursuant to the disciplinary enquiry held to enquire into the charges levelled against him. The affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, and the counter affidavit, are silent as to whether the respondent- bank, a bank constituted under the provisions of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, is an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As held by this Court in Sri Konaseema Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. v. N. Seetharama Raju5, a Writ Petition does not lie against the bank constituted under the provisions of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act if it is not an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and the remedy, if any, for the petitioner is under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988. Leaving it open to the petitioner to avail such other remedies as are available to him in law, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:02.12.2010 usd 5 AIR 1990 AP 171 (FB)