IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2232 of 2006 Between: Padala Rami Reddy S/o. Veera Reddy, R/o. Rompicherla Post & Mandal, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Muppalla Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Society, Muppalla, 2 The Divisional Co-operative Officer, Narasaraopet Division, Narasaraopet, Guntur District. 3 The District Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Guntur, Guntur District. 4 The Branch Manager, Guntur District Co-operative Cental Bank Ltd., Guntur 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 Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings No. 03/2005 dt. 30-3-2005 of the person-in- Charge of the 1st Respondent-Society as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against to the principles of natural justice and to pass such other and further orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.CHINNAPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Secretary in the first respondent- Society. During the year 2004, the Society was under the administration of Person-in-charge. He initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by issuing a charge memo, alleging that the petitioner collected an amount of Rs.1,56,270/-, and adjusted the same towards his salary and the salary of another employee. Through order, dated 09.08.2004, he placed the petitioner under suspension. Ultimately, through order, dated 30.03.2005, the Person-in-charge dismissed the petitioner from service, with effect from 09.08.2004. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Sri B.Chinnapa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client was not put on notice, during the alleged departmental enquiry and even the report of the Enquiry Officer was not furnished to him. He submits that the Person-in-charge had exceeded his jurisdiction in dismissing the petitioner from service, with retrospective effect. Though the respondents have served with notice, they have not chosen to enter appearance. The petitioner urges several grounds, while challenging the order of dismissal. It is alleged that he was not put on notice during the departmental enquiry. Be that as it may, the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal under the relevant Rules. Normally, the appeal would be to the Managing Committee of the Society. Since Person-in-charge passed the order, it would be deemed to have been passed by the Managing Committee. In that view of the matter, the appeal is to be preferred to the District Level Committee. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal before the District Level Committee. It is directed that, in case the appeal is presented within a period of four weeks from today, it shall be entertained without raising the objection as to limitation. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:02.07.2008 Note:Furnish C.C. in three days. (B/o) GJ