WP/13251/2006 of K. Sambasiva Rao S/o Late Ptichaiah Vs The Managing Director, The Andhra Bank on 22 December 2006

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANAW.P. No. 13251 of 2006

Oral order:

Assailing the action of the 1[st] respondent, namely the ManagingDirector, Andhra Bank Farmer’s Co-operative Society Ltd., in notimplementing the decision of the 2[nd] respondent, namely theManaging Committee, Andhra Bank Farmer’s Co-operative SocietyLtd., the petitioner filed this writ petition.

The petitioner while working as Senior Field Officer in AndhraBank Farmer’s Co-operative Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘thesociety’), was terminated from service vide orders dated 09.09.2005 ofthe 1[st] respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred anappeal to the 3[rd] respondent, namely the District Co-operative Officer, on 09.11.2005. However, the 3[rd] respondentvide proceedings dated 16.11.2005, returned the appeal of thepetitioner stating that as per the amended Bye-laws, the authorityempowered to entertain the appeal is not he, but the 2[nd] respondent. The petitioner accordingly submitted appeal beforethe 2[nd] respondent, who in their extraordinary meeting held on30.12.2005 unanimously resolved to reinstate the petitioner intoservice. However, the 1[st] respondent, who is the ex-officio Member ofthe 2[nd] respondent, refused to implement the same, stating that theappeal was not preferred in time. Thereafter, he addressed a letter tothe 4[th] respondent, namely the Divisional Co-operative Officer,seeking clarification with regard to the period of limitation and thepower of the 2[nd] respondent to entertain the appeal. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the 4[th] respondent clarifying that 2[nd]respondent is the appellate authority, and the orders passed by the 2[nd]respondent on the appeal filed by the petitioner are valid and shouldbe implement, yet the 1[st] respondent refused to implement the same. Hence, he filed the present writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1[st] respondent being the executive authority, is bound to implementthe decision of the 2[nd] respondent and he can neither question thejurisdiction of nor the decision of the 2[nd] respondent.

The 1[st] respondent and the 4[th] respondent filed two separatecounters.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1[st] respondent reiterating the counter averments submitted that theproposals for amendment of the Bye-laws have not been approved sofar, and as per the old Bye-laws it is the 3[rd] respondent, who isempowered to entertain and decide the appeal, and inasmuch as the2[nd] respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, the orderspassed by the 2[nd] respondent are a nullity. Therefore, no exceptioncan be taken to the action of the 1[st] respondent in not implementingthe decision of the 2[nd] respondent, which directed reinstatement of thepetitioner into service.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4[th] respondent, reiterating the counter averments submitted that 4[th] respondent had vide letter 19.01.2006 had instructed the 1[st] respondent and the 2[nd] respondent to take appropriate action in thematter keeping in view the provisions of A.P. Co-operative SocietiesAct, 1964 and the Rules made thereunder and the Bye-laws of the society. He submitted that since the employees of the Andhra BankFarmer’s Service Co-operative Society Ltd. are government by theSpecial Bye-laws of the society, he cannot interfere with the serviceand disciplinary action matters.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learnedcounsel for the 1[st] respondent and the learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent.

On the last occasion, when the matter came up, this Courtdirected the counsel for the 4[th] respondent to verify whether anyamendment has been effected to the Bye-laws dated 26.02.1993. Today, the learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent on instructionssubmitted that the proposals for amendment of the Bye-laws have notbeen approved, and as on today, the old Bye-laws are in force.

Conclusion

Pointing to the provisions of the old Bye-laws, the learnedcounsel for the 4[th] respondent submitted that the power to entertain anappeal, against an order of dismissal passed against a Senior FieldOfficer, is vested in the 3[rd] respondent. Admittedly, the petitionerpreferred appeal to the 3[rd] respondent, but the 3[rd] respondent on thepremise that the Bye-laws were amended, and as per the amendedBye-laws, the power to entertain the appeal is vested in the 2[nd]respondent, returned the appeal to the petitioner. Even though, theBye-laws were not amended, yet the 2[nd] respondent entertained theappeal filed by the petitioner and ordered his reinstatement intoservice, which the 1[st] respondent being the executive authority,refused to implement. Inasmuch as the 2[nd] respondent had noauthority to entertain the appeal, the orders passed by him on theappeal of the petitioner, are without jurisdiction.

In the above view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to disposeof the writ petition with the following directions:

The orders passed by the 2[nd] respondent on the appeal of thepetitioner, which the 1[st] respondent refused to implement, are withoutjurisdiction, and are accordingly set aside. Since under the Bye-lawsthe 3[rd] respondent is the authority empowered to entertain and decidethe appeal, the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh appeal against theorder of removal before the 3[rd] respondent, within a period of oneweek from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on the appealbeing filed, the 3[rd] respondent shall entertain the appeal, and considerand dispose of the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, inaccordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of theappeal.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

Dated: 22[nd] December, 2006.KSR

_________________

N.V. RAMANA, J.