IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 6856 of 2001 Between: V.Subba Rao S/o. Satyanarayana Murthy Narendrapuram PACS, P.Gannavaram PACS, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Coop. Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 The District Coop. Central Bank, Rep. by its General Manager, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3 The Narendrapuram PACS, Rep. by its Chairman/Persons-In-Charge Committee, P.Gannavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the 1st respondent in issuing proceedings Rc.no.7028/99, dated 6.4.2001 and consequential proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No. Nil dated 6-4-2001 as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India apart from contrary to the provisions of the A.P.C.S. Act and also orders of this Hon'ble Court made in W.P.M.P.No.33172/97 in W.P.No.28473/97, dated 31.10.97 and also without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.S.K.RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.B.ADINARAYANA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed against the proceedings of the first respondent bearing reference R.C.No.7028/99 dated 06-04-2001 and what the petitioner characterizes is a consequent proceedings issued by the second respondent, also dated 06-04-2001. The petitioner has not chosen to file the proceedings purportedly issued by the second respondent consequent on the proceedings dated 06-04-2001 issued by the first respondent. The first respondent’s proceedings dated 06-04-2001 states that the Narendrapuram Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society had reported that the petitioner, a secretary of the society, had irregularly drawn an amount of Rs.45,416/- on 15-03-2001 as arrears of salary for the period from 01-06-1999 to 01-12-1999 without the knowledge and orders of the Chairman of the Person-in-charge committee of the society and in violation of the High Court order dated 16-01-2001 in Contempt Case No.1253 of 2000 against the interim direction dated 05-07-2000 in W.P.M.P.No.14649 of 2000 in W.P.No.11522 of 2000; that the Person-in-charge committee of the society resolved on 04- 04-2001 to request the authorities for suspension of the petitioner and initiating a disciplinary enquiry into the matter. The first respondent thereupon proceeds to record that the addressee (unmentioned) is requested to initiate disciplinary action after considering the resolution dated 04-04-2001 of the Person-in-charge of the society for keeping the petitioner under suspension immediately and to order a domestic enquiry into the matter by an officer of the District Cooperative Central Bank, Kakinada. As the first respondent’s order dated 06-04-2001 filed in the material papers by the petitioner does not disclose the addressee, it is not clear to whom the first respondent addressed the request to initiate disciplinary action and to place the petitioner under suspension. By another proceeding dated 06-04-2001 the second respondent District Cooperative Central Bank, Kakinada, pursuant to the orders of the first respondent dated 06-04-2001 is asserted to have placed the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry into the matter. The petitioner assails the order of suspension (not filed) on the ground that on allotment after transfer to the third respondent he is a permanent employee of the said society and the first respondent not having been conferred the powers of Registrar under Section 72 (5) of A.P. Cooperative Society Rules, 1964, could not exercise the powers of Registrar for directing his suspension nor could the second respondent place him under suspension. The first respondent’s proceedings dated 06-04-2001 merely requests the addressee (unknown) to initiate disciplinary action considering the third respondent’s society resolution dated 04-04-2001 and to take action for suspension of the petitioner pending such investigation. Whether the petitioner’s suspension ought to have been ordered by the third respondent or the second respondent, the legal position is that any disciplinary action by the employer, either the third respondent or the District Cooperative Central Bank/the second respondent, is not amenable to scrutiny in judicial review, in view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Sri Konaseema Cooperative Central Bank Limited and another v. N.Seetharama Raju[1]. In the above view of the matter, the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner is required to pursue appropriate other remedies as advised. On the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 04th February, 2009 SKM [1] AIR 1990 AP 171