THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25165 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition presents a typical case. The petitioner was appointed as a Paid Secretary in a Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society affiliated to District Cooperative Central Bank Limited (for short ‘the Bank’), Nalgonda in the year 1978. Even while in service, he contested as Sarpanch of a Village, won the election and continued in that Office, till 1992. Though he is said to have submitted a resignation, neither it was pressed nor was it acted upon. The then administration of the Society as well as the Bank accommodated the petitioner and took him into service in the year 1992. A complaint was received to the effect that the petitioner contested and was elected as Sarpanch even while in service and no action has been taken thereon. In view of this development, necessary enquiries were caused by the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Miryalaguda, respondent No.2 herein. The enquiries made by the respondent No.2 revealed that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch and continued for four years between 1988 and 1992. This naturally warranted disciplinary action against the petitioner. Respondent No.2, however, issued orders, dated 25.06.2010, imposing the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, for his illegal appointment in the Society and thereby, closed the disciplinary proceedings. The Chief Executive Officer of the Bank was directed to make entries in the service record of the petitioner about the punishment. Respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice, dated 22.07.2010, requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why punishment be not imposed against him. The said proceedings are challenged in this writ petition. Sri M.Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the punishment was imposed by respondent No.2 without issuing notice to the petitioner and the show cause notice issued by respondent No.1 is virtually superfluous. He contends that the proceedings are violative of principles of natural justice. Sri T.Amarnath Goud, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, submits that respondent No.2 has taken a lenient view on the petitioner and though a severe action was warranted, a punishment of a lesser magnitude was imposed and the petitioner cannot be said to have suffered any detriment. The petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1978. Ten years thereafter, he left the service and was elected as Sarpanch. He served almost as full term. The circumstances under which he came to be taken into service in 1992, are not immediately before this Court. Eighteen years after he came to be re-inducted into service, a complaint was made about his working as Sarpanch even while in service. Respondent No.2 got it enquired into and on finding that the allegation is true, punishment was imposed. In case respondent No.2 found any irregularities in the re-induction of the petitioner in 1992, he ought to have issued necessary instruction to respondent No.1 to take necessary action. Instead, he has imposed the punishment by himself. Even if this course was permissible in law, he ought to have issued notice to the petitioner before punishment was inflicted. Show cause notice issued by respondent No.1 is almost futile, since the punishment to be imposed against the petitioner was already determined by respondent No.2. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the order, dated 25.06.2010, passed by respondent No.2 and the notice issued by respondent No.1 on 22.07.2010 are set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to pass fresh orders within a period of four (4) weeks from today, after issuing notice to the petitioner, duly taking into account the relevant provisions of law and the gravity of misconduct. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:06.10.2010. kdl