HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED WRIT PETITION NO. 2282 OF 2000 Between: K. V. Nagaraja Rao S/o late Srinivasa Ranga Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited, Visakhapatnam and two others. .....RESPONDENTS ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in deducting Rs. 1,000/- per month from the salary of the petitioner from September 1999 onwards without there being any order to that effect as arbitrary and unreasonable. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working in Girijan Coperative Corporation Limited, Regional Office, at Hyderabad since 1.5.1999. While so, the Head Office of the Corporation gave a target to produce 1000 quintals of Mohwa seed for the year 1998-99. It is stated that the first respondent issued proceedings dated 2.11.1998 alleging that the petitioner committed certain irregularities in collusion with the Senior Accountant and Sri T. Venkataiah and failed in discharging his legitimate duties in safeguarding the interest of the corporation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 3557 of 1998 and this Court by order dated 23.12.1998 quashed the above said proceedings on the ground that they are violative of principles of natural justice. This Court also observed that it shall be open to the Corporation to issue notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation and make an enquiry and proceed with the matter in accordance with law. After that the first respondent issued show cause notice dated 30.1.1999 asking the petitioner to show cause within ten days as to why Rs. 74,800/- being 50% of the loss sustained by the Corporation together with interest at 24% per annum shall not be recovered from him and to that he submitted an explanation on 30.5.1999 mentioning the facts and denying the allegations made against him. Even then, the respondents are recovering Rs. 1,000/- per month from the salary of the petitioner from September 1999 on wards without there being any order to that effect. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. As seen from the record, the respondents are recovering an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month from the salary of the petitioner from September 1999 on wards without issuing any order to that effect and without intimating the same to the petitioner, therefore, the action of the respondents in deducting the amount from the salary of the petitioner is illegal and the Writ Petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. However, If the respondents want to proceed against the petitioner, they have to conduct an enquiry into the matter and issue notice and then proceed against him in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J DATE: 25.11.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.