THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.21171 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner has joined the service of Anantapur District Co-operative Marketing Society Limited (for short ‘the Society’), the 1st respondent herein, in the year 1982, as a Salesman. Over the years, he acquired number of promotions, and in July, 2009, he was promoted as Accounts Officer. The post of Business Manager in the Society fell vacant, on account of retirement of the incumbent on 31-07-2009. The petitioner was placed Incharge of that post, with effect from 31-07-2009. The petitioner states that some of the members in the Managing Committee of the society did not like his functioning, as Business Manager. A show cause notice dated 28-07-2010 was issued to him, to explain as to why he did not take necessary steps to recover the outstanding dues of Rs.25 lakhs. An explanation was submitted by him, on 04-08-2010, indicating the steps taken by him for recovery of the amount. The Society passed an order dated 16-08-2010, placing the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect, alleging that certain irregularities were committed by him, as Incharge Business Manager. The order was passed on the basis of a resolution dated 12-08-2010, passed by the Managing Committee. The petitioner contends that the impugned order is motivated and issued without any basis. He contends that the Managing Committee did not pass any resolution, directing his suspension and the Incharge President issued the order without any basis. A counter-affidavit is filed by the Incharge President of the Society. He raised an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground that the suspension ordered against the petitioner is only the one, pending enquiry. He has reported certain acts and omissions on the part of the petitioner. Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was kept incharge of the post of Business Manager, hardly one year ago, and no irregularities have taken place ever since then. He contends that the mind of the Incharge President was evident from the letter dated 28-07-2010, wherein he pointed out that, in case the outstanding dues are not recovered, charges would be framed against the petitioner, and explanation was asked, and despite the submission of explanation, the impugned order was passed, without any specific reasons. Sri C.V.R. Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the management of the society noticed several irregularities on the part of the petitioner, and he was placed under suspension, with a view to conduct a detailed and comprehensive enquiry. Learned counsel contends that the impugned order does not suffer from any irregularity or infirmity. The promotion of the petitioner as Accounts Officer and his being kept as incharge of the post of Business Manger took place, almost simultaneously. For a period of one year, there were no allegations or remarks against the petitioner. On 28-07-2010, the Incharge President of the society issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, pointing out that, adequate steps were not taken for recovery of the outstanding dues. It was not even alleged that the petitioner was responsible for advancing the amounts. The said amounts remain not recovered, long before the petitioner assumed charge. All the same, the Incharge President mentioned that, if the explanation of the petitioner is not satisfactory, charges would be framed against him. The petitioner submitted his explanation, stating the steps he has taken for recovery of the amount, such as, by issuing notices. It is necessary to point out that the amount was due from the employees of the society itself. The impugned order was issued by the Incharge President, placing the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect. It is true that in an order placing the petitioner under suspension, pending enquiry, it is not necessary to elaborate the allegations or charges. That would be done, while issuing charge-sheet or notice. However, when a basis is indicated in the order of suspension, pending enquiry, it must be true and correct. Reference was made to resolution No.11, passed by the managing committee of the society, on 12-08-2010. In the agenda for the meeting held on 12-08-2010, it was only in Item No.2, that the information furnished by the petitioner as to the recovery of a sum of Rs.9 lakhs from the Director of District Cooperative Marketing Society (DCMS) was mentioned. The resolution sought the approval of the Committee for reference of the matter to the Collector, for taking civil and criminal action. Barring that, there is no item, contained any allegations against the petitioner. Further, the impugned order was preceded by only one show cause notice, in which the allegation was only as to the failure, on the part of the petitioner to recover certain amounts. Nothing personal was alleged against the petitioner, nor was he accused of misappropriating any amount. In the counter-affidavit, reference is made to the alleged order of appointment, said to have been made by the petitioner. It appears to be an after thought. At any rate, the society can certainly take action against the petitioner, in case it is found that he has resorted to any illegalities. The situation, however, does not warrant suspension, pending enquiry. On the other hand, such a step would cripple the activities of the society. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside, leaving it open to the 1st respondent to proceed with the disciplinary action, if any, against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.20-09-2010. KO