APHC010429972024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 22250/2024 Between: 1. GURRALA VENKATA LAKSHMI, W/O. PEDAVEERRAJU, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC- ATTENDER, GANDEPALLI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY (UNDER SUSPENSION) R/O. GANDEPALLI VILLAGE , EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL AND COOPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. . THE GANDEPALLI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, REP.BY ITS PERSONS-IN- CHARGE, GANDEPALLI, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. CHAIRMAN, GANDEPALLI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, GANDEPALLI, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. DISTRICT COOPERATIVE OFFICER, EAST GODAVARI 2 DISTRICT AT KAKINADA. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 4 in treating the services of the petitioner as terminated by virtue of resolution dated 25.03.2022 without passing a speaking order and serving notice of hearing after lapse of scheduled date is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and to direct the respondent No. 4 to reinstate the services of the petitioner in 4rt respondent society with all backwages and to pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondent No. 4 to pay the subsistence allowances to the petitioner pending disposal of writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II 2. SRINIVAS BASAVA The Court made the following: 3 The Court made the following ORDER: Aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent No.2 dated 25.03.2022, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sinivas Basava, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent initially issued notice on 22.03.2022 directing the petitioner to submit her explanation or appear before the Mahajana Sabha on 24.03.2022 at 11:00 a.m. However, the said notice was served on the petitioner only on 25.03.2022 and on the very same day, the impugned resolution dated 25.03.2022 was passed, which is contrary to the procedure contemplated under Service Regulations Relating to Service Conditions of the Employees of Gandepalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited (respondent No.2 herein), more specifically condition No.7, which reads as follows: “7. Procedure for Disciplinary Action: The following procedure shall be followed for initiating disciplinary action. The employee shall be issued a memo in writing of the allegations leveled against him, providing him an opportunity to submit his explanation within the prescribed time. When the 4 explanation offered is not found satisfactory he shall be served with a charge-sheet along with statement of allegations indicating the gravity of the misconduct. In case sufficient prima-facie evidence/material is available to proceed against the employee, the charge-sheet may also be issued directly. The process of appointment of Enquiry Officer shall necessarily be followed in respect of major misconduct. The Managing Committee shall appoint an Inquiry Officer. During the enquiry process, the employees shall be permitted to verify and take extracts from relevant records as required by him. The Enquiry Officer may however refuse such permission if in his opinion such records are not relevant to the enquiry by recording reasons in writing. The Enquiry Office shall submit his detailed enquiry report within a reasonable time i.e., within a period of 2 months. The competent authority shall consider the report and impose suitable punishment. A show cause notice shall be served on the employee giving an opportunity to make further representation. The competent authority shall consider the representation and pass final punishment orders.” 4. Based on the regulations, the respondents are required to follow the prescribed procedure. Upon completion of the enquiry and receipt of the report, the respondents have to issue notice specifying the proposed punishment and afford a reasonable opportunity to submit her explanation/representation. Only after considering such explanation/representation, the authorities can pass final punishment orders. However, in the instant case, though the notice was issued on 22.03.2022, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same was served on the petitioner only on 25.03.2022 and the impugned order was also passed on the very same day. 5 5. Upon considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders are passed contrary to condition No.7 of the Service Regulations Relating to Service Conditions of the Employees of respondent No.2. 6. Therefore, the impugned proceedings dated 25.03.2022, passed by respondent No.2, are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent to issue a fresh notice by giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to submit her explanation/representation, namely 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Thereafter, the respondents may take appropriate action in accordance with law. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 06.05.2026 ANS 6 183 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 22250/2024 Date: 06.05.2026 ANS