HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU W.P.No. 16961 of 2011 Date: 21-06-2011 Between: Sri M.S. Prakash Raju …………. Petitioner And The District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd …………. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU W.P.No. 16961 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 10-10-2008 and not paying the arrears of increment which was imposed as punishment with cumulative effect and also the value of the privileged leave amount for 121 days and other financial arrears from the date of his suspension on 18-09-2007 till the date of retirement. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition are stated as follows: The petitioner is the retired employee of the respondent-bank. While he was working as in-charge manager of the respondent-bank, an enquiry was conducted by the Divisional Cooperative Officer against the petitioner and two others and in the enquiry report dated 19-05-2007, it was held that the petitioner and two others are responsible for misappropriation of the funds to a tune of Rs.5,76,959/-. Therefore, the petitioner was suspended along with others. Subsequently, through the order dated 05-03-2008, the petitioner and others were reinstated to duty with immediate effect, by imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, subject to the finalization of surcharge proceedings by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Rajahmundry. However, the Deputy Registrar, Rajahmundry, in the enquiry report, held that the petitioner is not responsible for misappropriation of funds and therefore, he is not liable for any surcharge proceedings. Ultimately, through the order, dated 22-07-2008, the petitioner and another person were dropped from the enquiry by giving a recorded warning to be more careful in future. After revoking the suspension, the petitioner worked for some time in the respondent-bank and later retired from service. He made a representation dated 10-10-2008 to the respondent-bank requesting to pay the arrears of the increment, which were retained, and also to pay the value of the privileged leave of 121 days. As the respondent- bank has not passed any orders on his representation, the petitioner filed the writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that initially the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed subject to finalization of surcharge proceedings by the Deputy Registrar, and thereafter by order, dated 22-07-2008, the further enquiry against the petitioner was dropped by giving a recorded warning to be more careful in future, and therefore, there is no punishment of stoppage of increment forever and as such, the petitioner is entitled for the release of the increment and other monetary benefits in accordance with the rules and regulations. 4. The respondent-bank is the competent authority to fix the pay of the petitioner considering the fact that the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been modified to that of a warning. When there is no impediment for release of the increment, the respondent-bank has to take appropriate decision for releasing the increment in favour of the petitioner if he is otherwise eligible and no punishment imposed is subsisting against him by the disciplinary/appointing authority. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent-bank to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 10-10-2008 and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with the rules and regulations. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J Date: 21-06-2011 YCR