Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the Chairman, District Level Committee, Krishna District Co-operative Central Bank, and the dismissal order dated 18.02.2008 passed by the Kuchipudi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Ltd. The deceased first petitioner, R.V. Panduranga Rao, was employed as Secretary of the fifth respondent society. He alleged that he applied for casual leave on 05.07.2006 and 06.07.2006 due to his sister-in-law's ill health and sought extension of leave on medical grounds through telegrams and registered post, but his requests were not acted upon due to personal ill will. When he attempted to rejoin duty in December 2006, he was informed that he had been suspended on 26.08.2006. An enquiry officer was appointed, four charges were framed, and he submitted an explanation denying the charges. He was removed from service by order dated 18.02.2008. He preferred an appeal on 03.05.2008 before the District Level Committee under Chapter V(8) of the Societies bye-laws. As the appeal was not disposed of, he filed W.P.No.16531 of 2009 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, which was disposed of on 08.02.2016 directing the first respondent to pass orders on the appeal within twelve weeks and granting liberty to raise all contentions. Thereafter, the Chief Executive Officer of the first respondent addressed a communication dated 03.11.2016 based on the resolution dated 29.06.2016 of the District Level Committee, directing release of gratuity and provident fund amounts. Aggrieved by this communication and the underlying dismissal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner's counsel raised five contentions: lack of jurisdiction in initiating disciplinary proceedings without consultation with the first respondent; violation of natural justice in passing appellate orders without hearing; lack of reasoning in the impugned order; disproportionate punishment; and hardship caused to the petitioner's family after his death. The respondents, despite service of notice, did not file counter-affidavits. The court framed the point for consideration as whether the impugned communication/orders dated 03.11.2016 and the dismissal order dated 18.02.2008 are legally sustainable. The court observed that Section 116-AA of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and Rule 72(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 govern decaderisation of employees and that cooperative societies are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The court proceeded to examine the bye-laws of the society. The available excerpt ends before the final holding.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Dismissal/Removal from Service - Jurisdiction of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society to Impose Major Penalty - Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, Section 116-AA; Chapter V(7) of Societies Bye-laws - Deceased petitioner, a Secretary of respondent No.5 society, was dismissed on 18.02.2008 allegedly without consultation with the District Level Committee as required under bye-laws; the court examined the bye-laws and Section 116-AA of the Act, which abolished centralized services for certain posts and made societies amenable to Article 226 jurisdiction; the issue of lack of jurisdiction was raised and required determination (Paras 4-5, 9, 18-20). B) Constitutional Law - Natural Justice - Appellate Authority Must Provide Opportunity of Hearing - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioner contended that the appellate order dated 03.11.2016 was passed without affording an opportunity, contrary to earlier High Court order dated 08.02.2016 in W.P.No.16531 of 2009 directing the 1st respondent to pass orders within 12 weeks; the court noted this violation of principles of natural justice (Paras 6-7, 10, 17). C) Administrative Law - Reasoned Order - Quasi-Judicial Authority Must Deal with Contentions - Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, Section 116-AA - The 1st respondent's communication dated 03.11.2016 was challenged as suffering from lack of reasoning and not dealing with appeal contentions; the court considered whether the order was legally sustainable (Paras 11, 17). D) Service Law - Proportionality of Punishment - Dismissal Disproportionate to Charges - Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, Section 116-AA - The petitioner argued that dismissal was highly excessive and hit by doctrine of proportionality; the court examined the nature of charges and punishment imposed (Paras 12, 17). E) Procedural Law - Non-Filing of Counter-Affidavit - Court May Proceed on Available Material - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Despite service of notices, respondents 1-5 did not file counter-affidavits from 2017 to date; the court noted multiple adjournments and proceeded to adjudicate based on available record (Paras 15-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned communication/orders dated 03.11.2016 passed by the 1st respondent and dismissal orders dated 18.02.2008 of the 5th respondent Society are legally sustainable or not?
Law Points
- Violation of natural justice
- Lack of jurisdiction
- Doctrine of proportionality
- Need for reasoned order
- Applicability of Section 116-AA of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act
- 1964
- Amenability of cooperative societies to writ jurisdiction under Article 226
- Requirement of consultation with District Level Committee under bye-laws
