[3506 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL^ ^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN^ WRIT PETITION NO: 7299 OF 2025 Between: v/ BRT Sundari, D/O.B.Bhaskara Rao, Aged 57 Years, Manager, District Co-operative Bank Limited (DCCB) Visakhapatnam v/ Maharanipeta Branch ...PETITIONER ^ AND 1. The District Co-operative Bank Limited (DCCB), Represented By Its Chairperson, Person-in Charge Committee District Co-operative Bank Limited NTR Sahakara Bhavan.D.No- 58-14-57/1 Marripalem VUDA Layout,NH-5 Road,NAD Post, Visakhapatnam-530009 2. The Chief Executive Officer, NTR Sahakara Bhavan,D.No- 58-14-57/1 Marripalem VUDA Layout,NH-5 Road,NAD Post, Visakhapatnam- 530009 V/ 3. The General l^^fanager. District Co-operative Bank Limited (DCCB),NTR Sahakara Bhavan, D.No- 58-14-57/1 Marripalem VUDA Layout,NH-5 Road, NAD Post, Visakhapatnam-530009 % 4. The State Of Ar^ra Pradesh, Represented By Its Principal Secretary, Cooperation Department Secretariat Buildings ,Velagapudi,Amarava thi Guntur District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of Mandamus in declaring the action of the 2"^^ respondent in issuing 05.10.2021 as well as petitioner through Proceedings as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without competency and jurisdiction as per Chapter 10.Yl of District Co operative Central Bank (DCCB) Staff Service Regulations, in breach of natural justice, and^cordingly set aside th^ 2nd respondents Proceedings VLC/Estt/Sp.No.391/2021-22 dated- 05.10.2021 as well Proceedings Estt/DCCB.VSP/2024- v/ Proceedings VLC/Estt/Sp.No.391/20'^-22 dated; rejecting the appeal Estt/DCCB.VSP/2024-25 dated:29.^.2024 bf- - the as rejecting the 25 dated- 29.10.2024, consequentially direct the 1st respondent Appellate authority to decide petitioner appeal dated 16.12^021, as per the Rules and pass a reasoned order. and the lA NO: 1 OF 2n9fi Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1=' respondent Appellate authority to decide the petitioner appeal dated 16.12^021, as per the Rules and pass a reasoned order. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRi. K R SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondents: S!Rf V. LIMA DEVI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following: % THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION No.7299 of 2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief; “...to issue a Writ or Order more in the nature of Mandamus in declaring the action of the 2nd respondent Proceedings VLC/Estt/Sp.No.391/2021-22 dated: 05.10.2021 as well as rejecting the appeal of the petitioner through Proceedings Estt/DCCB. VSP/2024-25 dated:29.10.2024, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, without competency and jurisdiction as per Chapter 10.11 of District Co-operative Central Bank (DCCB) Staff Service Regulations, in breach of natural justice accordingly set aside the 2nd respondents Proceedings VLC/Estt/Sp.No.391/2021-22 dated: 05.10.2021 as well as rejecting the Proceedings Estt/DCCB. VSP/2024-25 dated:29.10.2024, and consequentially direct the 1st respondent appellate authority to decide the petitioner appeal dated 16.12.2021, as per the Rules and pass a reasoned order and pass such other... ” (in verbatim) in issuing and 2. Heard Sri K.R. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt. V. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3; and Ms. M. Sandhya Deepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing for respondent No.4. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she was working as a Manager with the 2nd respondent. Based on an allegation of 2 CGR.J W.P.No.7299 of 2025 prolonged unauthorized absence for a period of 1921 days, from 22.07.2007 to 22.10.2012, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her. By order dated 05.10.2021, a punishment was imposed, whereby she was fined Rs.5,000/-. Additionally, the period of 1921 days was treated as “not on duty”, rendering her ineligible to claim any monetary benefits for that duration. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent on 04.12.2021. As no acknowledgment was received, she resubmitted the appeal on 16.12.2021, which was . duly acknowledged. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent, by communication dated 29.10.2024, informed the petitioner that the appeals could not be entertained due to delay, as it was filed beyond 60 days, as per Clause 16(X) of Chapter X of the District Cooperative Central Bank Staff Service Regulations. Accordingly, the appeals were rejected. 4. 5. Aggrieved by the said rejection, which was issued by the 2nd respondent, who is not the competent appellate authority, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 6. The matter was heard on 21.03.2025, when learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 sought time to obtain instructions, the matter was adjourned to 28.03.2025. On 3 CGR,J W.P.No.7299 of 2025 28.03.2025 and 04.04.2025, there was no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It was made clear that the matter would be decided on merits if there was no representation on the next date. Even today, there is no representation from the said respondents. 7. Considering the nature of the issue, this Court finds it appropriate to decide the matter rather than to keep the writ petition pending. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeals submitted on 04.12.2021 and 16.12.2021 ought to have been considered and decided by the competent authority, namely the 1st respondent. However, the 2nd respondent, who lacks jurisdiction, issued the impugned communication rejecting the appeals. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order dated 11.02.2025 passed in W.P.No.2116 of 2025 by a coordinate Bench of this Court, which dealt with an identical issue involving another employee of the same respondent Bank on similar facts. 10. This Court has perused the record and considered submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. the 11. In the aforesaid order, the coordinate Bench of this Court considered a similar case and held as follows; 4 CGR, J W.P.No.7299 of 2025 Given the facts and circumstances, without going into various grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, rebutted by the leaned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the proceedings vide VLC/EstUSp.No.391/2021-22, dated 05.10.2021 of the Chief Executive Officer of the District Coop. Central Bank Ltd., Visakhapatnam and letter of communication vide Estt./DCCB/VSP/2024-25, dated 29.10.2024 (Ex. P.19) and remit the same to the Appellate authority. The Appellate authority shall decide the appeal by considering the service of the order on the petitioner and other attending circumstances, consider the appeal, strictly as per the Rules and pass a reasoned order. ’’ 11. 12. In the present case as well, it is noted that the petitioner submitted an appeal on 04.12.2021, though no endorsement is available for that date. However, for the appeal presented 16.12.2021, an endorsement is available on record. on The impugned punishment order dated 05.10.2021, against which the appeals are sought to be filed, even if considered to have been served on the petitioner on the same date, would render the 13. appeal filed on 04.12.2021 within the prescribed limitation of 60 days. If the order is considered to have been served at a later date even the appeal submitted on 16.12.2021 would fall within the prescribed limitation period and must be considered accordingly. 5 CGR,J W.P.No.7299 of 2025 14. As this Court, in the earlier W.P., directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal with reference to the date of service of the impugned order for the purpose of computing limitation, the present writ petition is also disposed of in a similar manner. 15. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the letter of communication dated 29.10.2024, issued by the 2nd respondent, who is not the competent appellate authority. The matter is remitted to the 1st respondent-appellate authority to decide the appeals submitted by the petitioner on 04.12.2021 and 16.12.2021. The appellate authority is directed to consider the date of service of the impugned order on the petitioner and decide the appeals on its merits, strictly in accordance with the law, and to pass reasoned and speaking orders within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall RAO //TRUE COPY// egistrar section OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, Cooperation Department State Of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings ,Velagapudi,Amaravathi Guntur District. [By Special Messenger] 2. The Chairperson, District Co-operative Bank Limited (DCCB), Person-in Charge Committee District Co-operative Bank Limited NTR Sahakara Bhavan,D.No- 58-14-57/1 Marripalem VUDA Layout,NH-5 Road,NAD Post, Visakhapatnam-530009 ^ 3. The Chief Executive Officer, NTR Sahakara Bhavan,D.No- Marripalem VUDA Layout,NH-5 Road,NAD 530009 The General Manager, District Co-operative Bank Limited (DCCB),NTR Sahakara Bhavan, D.No- 58-14-57/1 Marripalem VUDA Layout,NH-5 Road, NAD Post, Visakhapatnam-530009. [2 TO 4 by RPAD] One CC to SRI. K R SRINIVAS Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI V. UMA DEVI Advocate [OPUC] Two CC's to GP for Cooperation, High Court of A.P. [OUT] Three CD Copies 58-14-57/1 Post, Visakhapatnam- 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. m HIGH COURT DATED:09/04/2025 ORDER ST 2 5 SEP 2025 WP.No.7299 of 2025 iSj Co' THE WRIT PETITION IS DISPOSED OF WITHOUT COSTS