THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :194 of 2004 Dated:18.6.2010 Between: Ch.Subba Rao. .....PETITIONER AND 1 The District Co-Operative Officer, W.G. District, Eluru and others. .....RESPONDENTs This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :194 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaration the action of the 2nd respondent in revoking the suspension in favour of one P. Veera Brahmam vide proceedings dated 20.1.2003 and denying the same opportunity to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the 2nd respondent to revoke the suspension orders passed on 27.6.2002. The brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner and one P. Veera Brahmam, Secretary were kept under suspension by the then Chairperson of 3rd respondent- society vide proceedings dated 27.6.2002 purported to be passed basing on the directions of the 2nd respondent, on the irregularities pointed out by the auditor in his report. According to the petitioner, all the amounts were recovered from the members with interest, for irregular payment of bonus to employees and he is not responsible. He paid F.D loans to the concerned on the orders of the President and he paid the amounts on the proposal orders of the President and Secretary and against the suspension orders, the Secretary P. Veera Brahmam, the suspension orders were revoked on the ground that the payment of 50% salary as substantial allowances, without using the services of employees, will cause loss to the society and also invoking clause (1) (3) of Clause 12 of Bye-Laws, which says ordinarily be kept under suspension for more than six months. The petitioner and the said Veera Brahmam were suspended by a common order on the common allegation, but the authorities failed to adopt the same analogy in revoking the suspension orders against the petitioner herein. Heard and perused the material available on record. The undisputed fact is that the Secretary viz., P. Veera Brahmam, along with the petitioner on the same allegations by a common order, was suspended. But, subsequently, invoking the provisions of Clause (1) (3) of Clause 12 of Bye Laws, the suspension of the said P.Veera Brahmam alone was revoked. The writ petition is of the year 2004 and the material on record goes to show that this Court did not grant any interim order suspending the operation of the suspension of the petitioner. From this it is clear, the petitioner has been under suspension for all these years. According to clause (1) (3) of Clause 12 of Bye Laws, the employees working in credit society shall not ordinarily be kept under suspension for more than six months vide orders in R.C.No:766/2002 B, dated 20.1.2003. In view of the facts and circumstances and in view of the above bye laws, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I feel that it is a fit case wherein a direction can be issued to the authorities to pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents-authorities to pass appropriate orders in this regard, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice G.Chandraiah Date:18.6.2010 gurc THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO :194 of 2004 18.6.2010