IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 33008 of 1998 Between: Palangi PRimary Agril., Coop. Credit Society Ltd., Rep. President Sri Gubbala Rama Rao, Palangi, Undrajavaram Mandal,West Godavari. ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Commissioner and Registrar of Coop. Societies, A.P. Gruhakalpa Buildings, Opp: Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2.The Joint Registrar/Dist., Coop. Officer, Eluru, West Godavari. 3.Chilukuri Veera Raghavulu, S/o. Venkata Ratnam, the Palangi Primary Agril., Credit Coop. Society Ltd., Palangi, Undrajavaram mandal. .....RESPONDENTS 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 direction or order more specifically in the nature of Writ of Certiorari, setting aside the impugned order Rc.No. 16689/97 L-1 dated 18/07/1998 of the 1st respondent confriming the order Roc.No. 1116/96/A dated 16/01/1997 of the IInd Respondent declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal, unwarranted, frivolous against the principles of Coop., and in violation of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and consequently uphold the action of the petitioner society in remocing the R-3 from service, as legal, valid and in accordance with principles of natural justice having R-3 been given ample opportunity, in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SANKA RAMAKRISHANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : ORDER: Aggrieved by the order of the 1st respondent dated 18.07.1998 confirming the order of the second respondent dated 16.01.1997, the present writ petition is filed by a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society. 2. The 3rd respondent, who was working as an accountant in the petitioner society, was alleged to have indulged in misappropriation of Society funds and, under the Special byelaws governing the Society, he was removed from service pursuant to a charge sheet being issued to him and an enquiry being held. Aggrieved thereby, the 3rd respondent approached the 2nd respondent by way of an appeal petition under byelaw 12 (3) of the Special byelaws. 3. The 2nd respondent, in his order dated 16.01.1997, noted that the third charge levelled against the 3rd respondent was that, on 18.04.1995, one Sri Manne Rama Rao had paid Rs.20,000/- to be credited in his S.B.Account with the Society but the 3rd respondent, who received the amount, had credited only Rs.10,000/- on 24.09.1995 and had utilized the balance amount for his personal needs. The 4th charge was that one Sri Gannamani Venkateswara Rao had paid Rs.50,000/- to be credited in his account with the petitioner-Society whereas the 3rd respondent, who had received the amount, had credited only Rs.30,000/- in the Society and had used the balance of Rs.20,000/- for his personal needs. On the 3rd charge, the 2nd respondent found that the Managing Committee of the petitioner Society in resolution No.37 dated 27.06.1992 had authorized the appellant to deal with the S.B.Account transactions and maintenance of registers, that the 3rd respondent had entered transactions of credits and debits both in the pass book and on the pay in slips prepared by him, that it could be presumed that the operations in the S.B.Account of Sri Manne Rama Rao as detailed in the pass book and the entries brought to the cash book were not identical and that the 3rd respondent had retained Rs.5,000/- with him without crediting it to the S.B.Account but had allowed drawals and had, thereafter, paid the amount in full on 05.09.1995. 4. While Sri Manne Rama Rao is said to have remitted Rs.20,000/- on 18.04.1995, the 3rd charge held established against the 3rd respondent is that he retained a portion thereof i.e., Rs.5,000/- for a period of nearly six months till he remitted the amount in full on 05.09.1995. With regards the 4th charge, the 2nd respondent found that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was credited to the account of Sri Gannamani Venkateswara Rao with the petitioner Society on 28.03.1995, however, as per the voucher and entries in the scroll, Rs.30,000/- was credited on 29.03.1995 and that the 3rd respondent had failed to produce any evidence for Rs.20,000/-, which was reported to have been withdrawn by the account holder. The 2nd respondent held the 4th charge also as established. It is wholly unnecessary for us to examine the other charges, since the 3rd charge relates to temporary misappropriation of a sum of Rs.5,000/- for a period of six months and the 4th charge relates to misappropriation of Rs.20,000/- from the amounts which were credited to the Society by its members (agriculturists). 5. Curiously, the 2nd respondent held that the irregularities in the working could not be attributed to the third respondent alone and that the incident could not have taken place without the collusion of the President/Special Officer and the Secretary of the Society. The 2nd respondent held that ends of justice would be met if the appeal preferred by the 3rd respondent was allowed. The 2nd respondent directed that the 3rd respondent should be admitted to service by reverting him to the lower cadre with wages on par with employees in that cadre from the date of joining duty, as they were lax in following the procedure required in holding the disciplinary enquiry. The 2nd respondent further held that the 3rd respondent should be admitted to duty only after he credited Rs.20,000/- with interest from 28.03.1995, being the proceeds received from Sri Gannamani Venkateswara Rao and not credited to Society, to enable the Society to pay the amount to the S.B.Account holder. The 2nd respondent left it open to the petitioner to raise a dispute before the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Kovvur, for recovery of the amount due and to take legal action for realization of the amount. He further observed that the 3rd respondent was not entitled for backwages. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 76(2) (ii) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, before the Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies who, by order dated 18.07.1998, recorded his satisfaction that the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings dated 16.01.1997 were self explanatory. The 1st respondent noted that the 2nd respondent in his order had not only reinstated the 3rd respondent but had also ordered his reversion to a lower rank and that the order of reinstatement was also subject to recovery of the misappropriation amount of Rs.20,000/- with interest. The 1st respondent upheld the order passed by the 2nd respondent on 16.01.1997 and revoked his earlier order dated 05.03.1997 suspending the order of the District Cooperative Officer, Eluru. The 1st respondent left it open to the petitioner Society to take appropriate action against the 3rd respondent as per law, if considered necessary. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. 7. In this context, it is necessary to note that the 3rd respondent has not chosen to prefer an appeal against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 16.01.1997 and, insofar as he is concerned, the said order has attained finality. It is only the petitioner Society that is aggrieved by the said order whereby the punishment of removal imposed by it was modified to that of reversion. 8. The charges held established against the 3rd respondent are of temporary misappropriation of Rs.5,000/- for a period of six months and misappropriation of Rs.20,000/- being the amounts credited by members of the Society to their accounts with the petitioner Society. The 3rd respondent, an accountant with the petitioner Society, was assigned the duties of maintaining the accounts of the petitioner Society and his act in indulging in acts of misappropriation, temporary or otherwise, would justify a deterrent penalty being imposed on him. The order of the 2nd respondent dated 16.01.1997 reverting the 3rd respondent to a lower rank, while directing recovery of Rs.20,000/- from him, is a case of misplaced sympathy. Such acts of corruption must be sternly dealt with and no indulgence can be shown to such an employee. The finding of the 2nd respondent that the President of the Society/Special Officer and the Secretary had also colluded with the 3rd respondent may well have justified action being initiated against them also, but there is no justification whatsoever in directing that the 3rd respondent, who had indulged in such acts of misappropriation, should be reinstated into service reverting him to a lower post as such persons ought not be retained in employment. The order impugned must, accordingly, be quashed, upholding the order of removal passed by the petitioner. 9. Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, would contend that the departmental enquiry held against the 3rd respondent was in violation of principles of natural justice, that the Managing Committee, which had issued the show cause notice, had pre-determined the issue, that evidence in the departmental enquiry was not properly recorded and that the Managing Committee, which itself was involved in such illegal acts, was not entitled to take disciplinary action against the 3rd respondent. 10. While these contentions may have necessitated examination, if the 3rd respondent had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court or that of the appellate authority (1st respondent) against the order of reversion, it must be noted that the 3rd respondent has neither chosen to prefer an appeal against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 16.01.1997 nor has he chosen to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Having permitted the order of reversion, insofar as he is concerned, to attain finality, the 3rd respondent cannot now be heard to contend that the order, imposing on him the punishment, was in violation of principles of natural justice. These contentions, therefore, do not necessitate any further examination. 11. Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, would further contend that while this Court had initially passed an interim order, the order was vacated soon thereafter and the writ appeal preferred thereagainst was also dismissed and that, as a result, during the pendency of the writ proceedings for the past nearly a decade, the 3rd respondent has continued to remain in service of the petitioner Society. 12. It is well settled that an interim order would remain in force only during pendency of the writ petition and would not survive the final order passed in of the writ petition on merits. The mere fact that the 3rd respondent, in view of the interim order being vacated, was permitted to continue in service of the petitioner Society would not justify any indulgence being shown, when the 2nd respondent has held as a fact that the 3rd respondent had indulged in acts of misappropriation of funds, which rightfully belonged to members of the petitioner Society. The impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 16.01.1997 and the order of the 1st respondent dated 18.07.1998 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent are both quashed. 13. The writ petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J) 19th February, 2008 v v To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies