IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 7643 of 2008 Between: M.Appa Rao S/o.Rama Rao R/o.Korukonda village & Mandal East Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Cooperative officer, East Godavari District Kakinada 2 The District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., East Godavari District, Kakinada, rep.by its General Manager .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of madamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the retirement benefits in spite of the repeated requests made by the petitioner without any cause or right to withhold the same as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to release the retirement benefits forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.CHIDAMBARAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Cashier in the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Kakinada (for short ‘the Bank’). He retired from service on 31.12.2007 on attaining the age of superannuation. The Bank issued a Charge Memo, dated 24.07.2004, to the petitioner making certain allegations as regards the availment of loan and default in repayment thereof. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 30.09.2004. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and he, in turn, submitted his report on 10.06.2006. Taking the same into account, the Bank imposed the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect through its proceedings, dated 14.02.2007. On the same day, it issued another notice directing the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.3,33,000/- which is said to be due from him against the loans obtained by him. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that he secured loans from the Bank on several occasions by pledging his F.D.Rs. and only a sum of Rs.30,000/- was due from him as on the date of his retirement. The petitioner contends that even this amount was repaid. He states that one Sri Chakradhar Rao, Assistant Manager had manipulated the records in such a way, that the petitioner is shown to be due huge amounts. The first respondent, the District Cooperative Officer, filed a counter affidavit stating that several defects were noticed in the audit conducted under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and fixation of liability on the petitioner is correct. The second respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner availed the loans on several occasions, contrary to rules, with the collusion of certain authorities and as on 14.02.2007, he was due to remit a sum of Rs.3,33,000/-. The petitioner had filed a reply-affidavit denying the allegations made in the counter-affidavits. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. The petitioner does not feel aggrieved by the punishment imposed against him through the proceedings, dated 14.02.2007. His grievance is about the notice issued on the same day, requiring him to deposit a sum of Rs.3,33,000/-. A perusal of the affidavit, counter-affidavits and the connected record discloses that there is any amount of uncertainty as to the quantum of loan sanctioned to the petitioner from time to time, and the repayment thereof. This Court cannot undertake adjudication into such disputed questions of fact. It is not a case where the petitioner flatly denied his obtaining, of the loans from the Bank. The enquiry report itself discloses that the loan was availed by the petitioner on, as many as, 25 occasions. Therefore, it is a case for verification of the records. In case any other party had drawn the amount in the name of the petitioner, necessary steps need to be taken against such persons also. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the Bank as well as the petitioner shall approach the jurisdictional Deputy Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, for resolution of the dispute and the Deputy Registrar, in turn, shall undertake verification and record findings duly giving opportunity to both the parties. The Deputy Registrar shall endeavour to conclude the proceedings before him, within a period of three months from the date of commencement thereof and the parties shall abide by the same. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:19.08.2008 kdl