IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6747 of 2008 Between: J. Venkat Ram Reddy S/o Buchi Reddy Hyderabad District Central Co-operative Bank, Mahammadabad R/o H. No. 10-55, Marlu Palakendra Road, Mahabubnagar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Hyderabad District Central Co-opertive Bank Ltd., rep by its General Manager, Nampally Station Road. Hyderabad. 2 Hyderabad District Central Co-opertive Bank Ltd., Mahammadabad Branch, repby its Branch Manager, Mahammadabad. Hyderabad District. .....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 of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing charge Memo Vide Ref. No. HRD/2007-08/400 dated 27-04- 2007, under disciplinary proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and set a side the same declaring as such and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMT.G.JYOTHI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was working as Assistant Manager in the second respondent branch, in November 2006. On 21.11.2006, the Branch Manager was on leave and the petitioner was entrusted with the duties of the Branch Manager. The cash chest of the branch is to be operated jointly by the Cashier and the Manager. That day, the petitioner was discharging the duties of Manager, but the cashier did not turn up. There were huge cash receipts to the tune of Rs.22,91,992/-. Out of that amount, a sum of Rs.1,65,324/- was paid to the customers. The balance could not be kept in the cash chest, since the cashier did not turn up, nor did he handover the key. The amount of Rs.21,26,668/- was preserved in the branch. On the next day, i.e. 22.11.2006, the Cashier reported to duty, and the cash was put in the chest. When the account was taken, a deficit of Rs.1,38,950/- was noticed. On 23.11.2006, the first respondent issued proceedings placing the petitioner under suspension. Thereafter, a charge memorandum was issued on 27.04.2007. The departmental enquiry is said to be in progress. The petitioner challenges the order of suspension. It is urged that though the cashier himself owned his responsibility for the deficit in the chest and though not even an allegation is made against the petitioner as to any misappropriation, and that he is continued under suspension without any basis. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit narrating the circumstances that led to the placing of the petitioner under suspension. It is also stated that the enquiry against the petitioner is in progress and the proceedings would be concluded very shortly. Heard Smt.G.Jyothi Kiran learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents. The undisputed facts are that the Manager of the branch was on leave on 21.11.2006, the petitioner was discharging the duties of Manager and the Cashier did not turn up. The cash chest of the bank is to be operated by the Manager and Cashier jointly. On account of the absence of the Manager and the Cashier, the petitioner had to discharge the functions of both of them. Not a single irregularity of cash transaction was attributed to the petitioner. The only allegation made against him was that he preserved the cash in the branch premises during the night. It is rather curious to note that the first respondent did not even indicate as to how and where the cash ought to have been preserved, when the cashier did not turn up and when it was not possible for the petitioner to open the cash chest. Things would have been different, had it been a case where the petitioner had taken the cash out side the branch, or misappropriated the same temporarily. Further, the petitioner had the occasion to open the cash chest, along with the Cashier only on 22.11.2007. On all other occasions, it was opened by the Manager and the Cashier. Whatever may have been the circumstances under which the petitioner came to be placed under suspension; recently, i.e.23.03.2008, the Cashier submitted a representation admitting the guilt with reference to the deficiency of the cash to the extent of Rs.1,38,950/-. With this, the responsibility for the shortage, or deficit noticed in the chest on 22.11.2007, stands fixed solely upon the Cashier. This Court is of the view that the continuance of the petitioner under suspension is not at all warranted. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 23.11.2006, through which the petitioner was placed under suspension, is set aside. The first respondent shall reinstate the petitioner forthwith. The disciplinary proceedings may go on and the disciplinary authority shall endeavour to conclude the same as early as possible, preferably within three months from today. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.16.04.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}