THE HOH’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WA No.638 OF 2005 JUDGMENT : ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This writ appeal is ﬁled by the District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, Eluru at West Godavari District represented by its General Manager against the order dated 31-10-2003 passed in WP No.5614 of 2002. 2. The facts stated are: The 3rd respondent herein (since deceased by LRs.) during his course of employment as Accountant at Satrampadu branch of the appellant-bank was placed under suspension on 22-2-1995 on the allegations of certain irregularities committed by him while he was in charge Manager of the branch. Charges were framed and the 3rd respondent submitted explanation on 9-9-1995. Domestic enquiry was ordered into the charges framed against him on 14-9-1995. An enquiry oﬃcer was also appointed and he submitted his report and eventually, the 3rd respondent was dismissed from services by the proceedings dated 18-9- 1998. The appellant-bank passed a surcharge order against the 3rd respondent calling upon him to make good the loss to the tune of Rs.6,01,160/- allegedly mis-appropriated by him, as found in the enquiry conducted under Section 51 of the AP Co-operative Societies Act, 1964. During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the 3rd respondent ﬁled a petition being APSEC No.4 of 1999 under Section 50 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops & Establishments Act, 1988. In that petition he contended that he was continued under suspension for more than three years without any justiﬁcation and therefore he was entitled to full salary. The primary authority by order dated 8-10-1999, allowed the petition. The appellant-bank appealed against that order to the appellate authority, but the appeal was dismissed. Assailing the same, writ petition was ﬁled by the appellant- bank. By the impugned order the writ petition was also dismissed. Hence, this writ appeal by the bank. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. We have gone through the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-bank strenuously contended that inasmuch as the 3rd respondent was ultimately dismissed from service, the authorities including the learned single Judge of this Court ought not to have held that the 3rd respondent was entitled to full wages as per Section 47 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops & Establishments Act, 1988. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that notwithstanding the guilt is established, since the 3rd respondent was under suspension for a period more than one year. 5. A plain reading of Section 47 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops & Establishments Act, 1988, the legislative intent is manifestly clear that in the circumstances where the total period of suspension exceeds one year, the employee would be entitled to the beneﬁt of full wages for the period of his suspension beyond one year. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition does not warrants any interference by this Court. The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ___________________ Sanjay Kumar, J Dated: 17-10-2011 Nrg.