THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.5864 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is working as Special Category Assistant in the District Co-operative Central Bank. Earlier to that, he was functioning as Secretary/Chief Executive of the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Diguvamagam, the 4th respondent herein. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chittoor, the 2nd respondent herein, passed an order dated 07-05-2001, directing the 4th respondent to place the petitioner under suspension, on the ground that he failed to produce certain records. This was followed by surcharge proceedings against him, and an order was passed by the 2nd respondent on 20-12-2003. The suspension continued, till the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 30-05-2008, directing reinstatement of the petitioner. The petitioner filed C.T.A.No.58 of 2005 before the Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The appeal was allowed on 09-04-2008. Based upon the same, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 30-05-2008, directing reinstatement of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not paid subsistence allowance for the period during which, he was under suspension. He submits that payment of subsistence allowance is obligatory on the part of the employer, whenever an employee is placed under suspension. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit, stating that the petitioner misappropriated a sum of Rs.4.7 lakhs, and that the appeal was allowed on technical grounds. The 4th respondent filed a counter- affidavit, narrating the facts, that gave rise to the placing of the petitioner under suspension and revocation thereof. He too submits that the petitioner has misappropriated huge funds of the society. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Co-operation, and learned counsel for the 4th respondent. The 2nd respondent has undertaken inspection of the records of the 4th respondent-society. On the ground that the petitioner did not produce certain records, the 4th respondent passed orders, in exercise of power under Section 59 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act (for short ‘the Act’), and directed that the petitioner be placed under suspension. Ultimately, the report, on the basis of the inspection, was submitted pointing out acts of misappropriation against the petitioner. Surcharge proceedings under Section 50 of the Act were initiated and an order was passed against him. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal, and the same was allowed. As a result thereof, the 2nd respondent himself directed reinstatement of the petitioner. Whatever be the gravity of the charge, on account of which, the employee is placed under suspension, payment of subsistence allowance is a matter of course. Even where the charge in disciplinary proceedings is proved, and serious punishment of dismissal is imposed, an employee cannot be denied the subsistence allowance. The order passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 59 of the Act was silent as to the payment of subsistence allowance. Obviously because of that, the 4th respondent did not pay any amount to the petitioner, till he was reinstated. There was serious lapse on the part of the respondents in the whole episode. The petitioner was wrongfully denied the subsistence allowance. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, directing that the 4th respondent shall pay subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the period during which, he was placed under suspension, in six by-monthly installments. The first of such installment shall be paid by 20-10-2011. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.02-09-2011. KO