IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1551 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 18/09/2008 in WP NO : 2083 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Rep. by its Chairman, Opp: Officer's Club, Near Lakshmiranga Theatre, Kadapa. 2 The Syndicate Bank, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Corporate Office, Bangalore. 3 The General Manager, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Opp: Officer's Club, Near Lakshmiranga Theatre, Kadapa. 4 The Senior Manager Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Head Office, Opp: Officer's Club Near Lakshmiranga Theatre, Kadapa. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 A. Siva Shankar, S/o. Naga Subbaiah, Hindu, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, O/o. Betamcharla Branch, Kadapa District. 2 K. Srinivasa Sarma, S/o. K. Subrahmanyam, Hindu, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, R/o. No. 7/285/C, N.G.O., Colony, Kadapa. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:SRI.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SRI.S.LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO :1551 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ appeal is filed by the appellants against order, dated 18.9.2008 in W.P.M.P No.2659 of 2008 in WP No.2083 of 2008. The appellants are the respondents and the respondents herein are the writ petitioners. The status of the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the writ petition for the sake of convenience. The writ petitioners filed the writ petition seeking to declare the proceedings vide letter No.45/CRD:HO/BRCL/STF/007/08, dated 17.1.2008 of the 3rd respondent and the modified guidelines of the 1st respondent as contained in the above letter and also the letter No.1134/CRD/KDP/DJ-R/663/2007, dated 16.11.2007 of the 4th respondent as illegal and contrary to the guidelines issued by the 2nd respondent. Along with the writ petition, they have also filed W.P.M.P.No.2659 of 2008 seeking to direct the respondents to consider the sanction of staff demand loans as requested by the writ petitioners. On hearing the learned counsel on either side, the learned single Judge has passed the following order: “There shall be interim direction to the respondents to consider sanctioning staff demanding loans to the petitioners, without reference to the pendency of the charges, and pass appropriate orders as per their eligibility within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and communicate the same to the petitioners. However, the respondents are entitled to withhold any of the amounts sanctioned to the petitioners, if ultimately the petitioners are discharged from service, from the benefits to be payable to them. “ Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is preferred by the respondents. Ms.V.Umadevi, the learned counsel for the appellants- respondents submits that as many as 6 charge sheets were issued against the 1st petitioner and suitable punishments were awarded by the disciplinary authority in respect of four charge sheets and one is pending due to the suspension of the proposed punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, by this Court and another charge sheet is under process and that in respect of the 2nd petitioner, three charge sheets were issued and suitable punishments were awarded by the Disciplinary authority in respect of two charge sheets and one is pending due to the suspension of the proposed punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority. It is further submitted that it is much difficult for the Bank to recover the loans if severe punishment of removal from service is imposed. Therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, it is contended by Sri S.Lakshminarayana Reddy, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners that in respect of some of the charges, there is no proof and there is no financial loss or involvement by the charge sheeted employee and the 2nd petitioner was served with one charge sheet and charges do not in any way refer to the financial loss and involvement by the 2nd petitioner. A perusal of the entire material available on record coupled with the rival contentions, makes it clear that some disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioners and that the relief that is sought for in the main writ petition and the relief that has been granted in the interlocutory application, by the learned single Judge appear to be similar one. If any opinion is expressed on the merits of the case at this stage of the proceedings, it may touch the very merits of the main writ petition. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-respondents that the writ petition is posted for hearing on 2.3.2009. In this view of the matter and in view of the rival contentions, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, We feel it appropriate to set aside the order impugned. Accordingly, this writ appeal is allowed and the order impugned is set aside. However, the Registry is directed to post the writ petition on 4.3.2009 if not already directed to be posted on 2.3.2009. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ______________________________ Justice C.V. Nargarjuna Reddy Dated: 27.2.2009 Nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO :1551 of 2008 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 27th February, 2009 1