THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 13251 of 2006 Oral order: Assailing the action of the 1st respondent, namely the Managing Director, Andhra Bank Farmer’s Co-operative Society Ltd., in not implementing the decision of the 2nd respondent, namely the Managing Committee, Andhra Bank Farmer’s Co-operative Society Ltd., the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner while working as Senior Field Officer in Andhra Bank Farmer’s Co-operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the society’), was terminated from service vide orders dated 09.09.2005 of the 1st respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 3rd respondent, namely the District Co-operative Officer, on 09.11.2005. However, the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 16.11.2005, returned the appeal of the petitioner stating that as per the amended Bye-laws, the authority empowered to entertain the appeal is not he, but the 2nd respondent. The petitioner accordingly submitted appeal before the 2nd respondent, who in their extraordinary meeting held on 30.12.2005 unanimously resolved to reinstate the petitioner into service. However, the 1st respondent, who is the ex-officio Member of the 2nd respondent, refused to implement the same, stating that the appeal was not preferred in time. Thereafter, he addressed a letter to the 4th respondent, namely the Divisional Co-operative Officer, seeking clarification with regard to the period of limitation and the power of the 2nd respondent to entertain the appeal. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the 4th respondent clarifying that 2nd respondent is the appellate authority, and the orders passed by the 2nd respondent on the appeal filed by the petitioner are valid and should be implement, yet the 1st respondent refused to implement the same. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1st respondent being the executive authority, is bound to implement the decision of the 2nd respondent and he can neither question the jurisdiction of nor the decision of the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent and the 4th respondent filed two separate counters. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent reiterating the counter averments submitted that the proposals for amendment of the Bye-laws have not been approved so far, and as per the old Bye-laws it is the 3rd respondent, who is empowered to entertain and decide the appeal, and inasmuch as the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, the orders passed by the 2nd respondent are a nullity. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the action of the 1st respondent in not implementing the decision of the 2nd respondent, which directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent, reiterating the counter averments submitted that 4th respondent had vide letter 19.01.2006 had instructed the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action in the matter keeping in view the provisions of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and the Rules made thereunder and the Bye-laws of the society. He submitted that since the employees of the Andhra Bank Farmer’s Service Co-operative Society Ltd. are government by the Special Bye-laws of the society, he cannot interfere with the service and disciplinary action matters. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. On the last occasion, when the matter came up, this Court directed the counsel for the 4th respondent to verify whether any amendment has been effected to the Bye-laws dated 26.02.1993. Today, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent on instructions submitted that the proposals for amendment of the Bye-laws have not been approved, and as on today, the old Bye-laws are in force. Pointing to the provisions of the old Bye-laws, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the power to entertain an appeal, against an order of dismissal passed against a Senior Field Officer, is vested in the 3rd respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner preferred appeal to the 3rd respondent, but the 3rd respondent on the premise that the Bye-laws were amended, and as per the amended Bye-laws, the power to entertain the appeal is vested in the 2nd respondent, returned the appeal to the petitioner. Even though, the Bye-laws were not amended, yet the 2nd respondent entertained the appeal filed by the petitioner and ordered his reinstatement into service, which the 1st respondent being the executive authority, refused to implement. Inasmuch as the 2nd respondent had no authority to entertain the appeal, the orders passed by him on the appeal of the petitioner, are without jurisdiction. In the above view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The orders passed by the 2nd respondent on the appeal of the petitioner, which the 1st respondent refused to implement, are without jurisdiction, and are accordingly set aside. Since under the Bye-laws the 3rd respondent is the authority empowered to entertain and decide the appeal, the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh appeal against the order of removal before the 3rd respondent, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on the appeal being filed, the 3rd respondent shall entertain the appeal, and consider and dispose of the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of the appeal. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 22nd December, 2006. KSR