Telangana High Court
WP/18959/2007 of V.Naga Raju, Vs Hiramandalam PACS Ltd, on 31 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.18959 of 2007 Dated:31.12.2007 Between V.Naga Raju ..Petitioner and 1.Hiramandalam PACS Ltd., rep., by its President, Hiramandalam (Post and Mandal), Srikakulam and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.18959 of 2007
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
W.P.No.18959 of 2007
Dated:31.12.2007
Between
V.Naga Raju
and
..Petitioner
1.Hiramandalam PACS Ltd.,
rep., by its President,
Hiramandalam (Post andMandal), Srikakulamand others.
…Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.18959 of 2007
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:
On 7.9.2007 in WPMP No.24373 of 2007this Court passed the following order:
“It appears that after conducting enquiryunder Section 51 of the CooperativeSocieties Act, the petitioner was found tobe liable to pay certain amounts.Thereafter, surcharge proceedings underSection 60 of the Cooperative SocietiesAct were concluded and the petitioner wasmade liable to pay certain amounts. Hehas paid those amounts. Thereafter, adisciplinary action is sought to be initiatedas per the service rules and the petitionerwas placed under suspension. Aggrievedby the same, the petitioner went beforeDivisional Cooperative Officer, who, onexamination of the matter, directed thesociety to reinstate the petitioner into service.
Now it is the grievance of the petitioner, inspite of there being directions from theDivisional Cooperative Officer, Tekkali, thepetitioner is not being reinstated intoservice. In view of the above, prima facie, Iam of the opinion that the petitioner isentitled to be reinstated into service inview of the orders passed by theDivisional Cooperative Officer, Tekkali, on3.2.2007 and not following the said orderswould amount to refusing to implement theorders of the higher authorities.In view of the same, the first respondent isdirected to reinstate the petitioner intoservice within a period of two weeks fromthe date of receipt of this order. If theorders are not complied with, the secondrespondent is at liberty to take appropriateaction as available under law against thefirst respondent.”
It appears that the petitioner has alreadybeen reinstated into service in pursuance of thesaid order.In view of the same, nothing survives forfurther adjudication in this writ petition and the same is closed accordingly.
rkk
_________31-12-1007