Telangana High Court
WP/22616/2005 of R. Janardhan Reddy, Vs Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, on 23 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22616 of 2005 Dated 23-12-2005 Between: R.Janardhan Reddy. .. PETITIONER AND Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Yellamkanne and others. .. RESPONDENTS ORDER The petitioner was working as a Secretary in the Primary Agricultural
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.22616 of 2005
Dated 23-12-2005
Between:
R.Janardhan Reddy.
.. PETITIONER
AND
Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, Yellamkanne and others.
.. RESPONDENTS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The petitioner was working as a Secretary in the Primary Agricultural Co-operativeSociety, Gingurthy. The said society has since been merged with the firstrespondent through a resolution, dated 29-09-2002, the Managing Committee of thefirst respondent society removed the petitioner from service on certain allegations.The petitioner challenges the same.
Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the firstrespondent did not conduct any enquiry into the matter nor issued any show causenotice and straight away passed a resolution terminating the services of thepetitioner. He contends that the resolution is ex facie, illegal and cannot besustained in law.
On behalf of the first respondent, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that theManaging Committee was constrained to remove the petitioner on account ofvarious acts of misconduct committed by him. He pleaded that the writ petition is notmaintainable since there is an alternative remedy by way of appeal under Clause-12of Special Byelaws.
Sri R.Radha Krishan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent,reiterates the contents of the counter-affidavit.
Though several contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner touching on thevalidity of the resolution passed by the first respondent, this court is not inclined to deal with the same at this stage. The reason is that the petitioner has an effectivealternative remedy by way of appeal under Clause-12 of Special Byelaws. Theappellate authority will be in a better position to appreciate the matter, duly callingfor the records and remarks from the first respondent. The grievance of the petitioneris that the time stipulated for preferring the appeal had expired.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to prefer anappeal before the appellate authority under Clause-12 of Special Byelaws. In case,the appeal is presented within 30 days from today, the appellate authority shall treatthe same as having been filed within a period of limitation. The appellate authorityshall endeavor to dispose of the appeal within a period of four months from the dateof presentation. No order as to costs.
23-12-2005
______________