Telangana High Court
WP/20769/1999 of C.V.KRISHNA MURTHY Vs JT.REG/DIST.COOP OFFICER KURNOOL AND 2 on 29 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.20769 of 1999 Between: C.V.Krishna Murthy. … Petitioner And The
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE,ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNAREDDY
MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OFDECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY
WRIT PETITION No.20769 of 1999
Between:
C.V.Krishna Murthy.
…
Petitioner
And
The Joint Registrar/District Co-operative Officer,Kurnool and two others.
… Respondents
Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Chakravarthy for Sri O.Manohar Reddy.
Counsel for the respondents: None.
This Court made the following:
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:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus toset aside proceedings dated 25-9-1999 issued byrespondent No.1 to respondent No.3-Koilakuntla Co-operative Town Bank, Koilakuntla, Kurnool District, (forshort “the Bank”) to terminate the services of thepetitioner.
Heard Sri Chakravarthy, counsel representing SriO.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.No one appeared for the respondents despite showingtheir names in the cause list.
The petitioner claimed to have applied to the Bank for appointment to the post of Chief Executive Officer-cum-Managing Director. By order dated 5-10-1996 thepetitioner was appointed to the said post and, accordingto the petitioner, his services were regularized witheffect from 1-4-1997. Respondent No.1 by theimpugned proceedings addressed to the President ofthe Bank, opined that the appointment of the petitionerto the post of Chief Executive Officer is against thespecial bye-laws of the Bank and in gross violation ofthe procedure prescribed for such appointment. He, therefore, requested the latter to remove the petitionerimmediately and recover the amount paid to himtowards the salary.
No counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of therespondents.
One of the main pleas raised by the petitioner toinvalidate the impugned order is that before passing thesaid order no notice was given to the petitioner. Theimpugned order is in the nature of intra-departmentalcorrespondence. This order by itself does not have theeffect of terminating the services of the petitioner.However, the President of the Bank, being subordinateto respondent No.1, is bound by the opinion expressedby the latter. Doctrine of fairness requires that beforecoming to a concluded opinion, respondent No.1 oughtto have elicited the views of the petitioner. In this view ofthe matter, though the impugned order is in the natureof a correspondence between the two functionaries, stillthe interest of the petitioner is vitally affected. If thepetitioner’s appointment is contrary to the procedure,the same can be terminated only after givingopportunity of fair hearing to him and considering hisexplanation. Therefore, the impugned order does notconform to the settled principles of natural justice andfair play.
The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed and theimpugned order is quashed. Respondent No.3-Bankshall be free to initiate appropriate proceedings againstthe petitioner, in accordance with law.
------------------------------------
C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY,JDate:29-12-2008MNR