APHC010031162025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2116/2025 Between: Brt Sundari ...PETITIONER AND The District Cooperative Bank Limited (DCCB) and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K R SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V UMA DEVI 2. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri K.R.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.V.Uma Devi, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and learned Government Pleader for Cooperation for 4th respondent. 2. The above writ petition is filed impugning the proceedings vide VLC/Estt./Sp.NO.391/2021-222, dated 05.10.2021, imposing the punishment, stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and further treating the 2 absence of 171 days from 15.12.2006 to 03.06.2007 as not on duty and no work and no pay and further the letter of communication vide Estt./DCCB.VSP/2024-25 dated 29.10.2024 of the 2nd respondent whereby the Person-In-Charge of the bank declined to consider the appeal on the ground of limitation, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. A charge memo vide Est/Sp.No.391/2007-08 dated 12.06.2007 (Ex.P.1) was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 06.07.2007 (Ex.P.2). Initially, the Inquiry officer submitted a report dated 13.03.2012. The Disciplinary authority vide proceedings VLC/391/12-13 dated 18.10.2012 (Ex.P.9) appointed one Sri B.N.Satyanarayana Murthy, Deputy General Manager (Dev), Central Office as Inquiry Officer to conduct De-novo inquiry. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 18.07.2014. Thereafter, a show-cause notice vide VLC/SP.No.391/2015-16, dated 17.04.2015 (Ex.P.11) was issued to the petitioner indicating punishment while disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 07.05.2015 (Ex.P.12). 4. By proceedings VLC/Estt./S.No.391/2021-22, dated 05.10.2021 (Ex.P.16) the 2nd respondent imposed punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and further the absence of 171 days was treated as ‘not on duty (no work – no pay)’. The petitioner filed an appeal to the Appellate Authority i.e. the Chairperson, Person-in-charge Committee on 04.12.2021 (Ex.P.17). The petitioner filed another appeal to the Chairperson, Person-in-charge Committee on 16.12.2021 (Ex.P.18). 5. The 2nd respondent communicated a letter vide Estt./DCCB.VSP/2024- 25 dated 29.10.2024 wherein it was stated that the petitioner filed an appeal on 21.08.2024 and 11.10.2024. The appeals were placed before the Joint Collector / Person-in-charge of the Bank on 25.10.2024 and the Person-in- 3 charge opined that the employee made appeals beyond 60 days and thus, opined that the request cannot be considered as per the Service Regulations of the employees of the bank. 6. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the authority imposed punishment initially acted as Presenting Officer and hence, the proceedings imposing the punishment are vitiated. 7. Conversely, learned standing counsel would contend that after the initial inquiry, a report was submitted on 13.03.2012, a De novo inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer submitted a report. In the said De novo inquiry, Smt.D.Annapurna, Asst.Gen.Manager, Central Office was appointed as Management Representative. While disagreeing with the findings, a show- cause notice dated 170.402015 (Ex.P.11) was issued. After considering the explanation, the punishment was imposed vide order dated 13.01.2016 (Ex.P.12). Since the appeal was filed beyond 60 days, the same was rejected on that ground and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Consideration: 8. As seen from Ex.P.18, an appeal was filed on 16.12.2021 by the petitioner. In the material papers, Ex P.17, would manifest that the petitioner filed an appeal on 04.12.2021 however, there is no endorsement. As per Clause (10) of the Service Regulations of the employees of the District Co- operative Central Bank Limited, one has to file an appeal against the primary authority to the Appellate authority within 60 days. Thereafter, the appeal has to be disposed of within 90 days. 9. In the case at hand, as seen from Ex.P.18, the appeal was filed on 16.12.2021 against the order impugned dated 05.10.2021 (Ex.P.16). Neither the writ affidavit nor the counter-affidavit would indicate regarding serving the order dated 05.10.2021 on the petitioner. An order passed, unless, is served 4 on the recipient, the recipient may not be filed an appeal. In such a circumstance, the 60 days need to be reckoned from the date of service of the order, nothing was discussed in the order regarding service and delay in not filing after the service within the time stipulated. On this ground alone the order is liable to be set aside. 10. Though the outer limit is prescribed as 60 days to file an appeal, if the appeal is filed with reasonable delay, this appellate authority may exercise its discretion within the purview of the regulations. Of course, the petitioner also filed appeals, as seen from the proceedings (Ex.P.19), on 21.08.2024 and 11.10.2024, however, there is no dispute that the petitioner filed the appeal on 16.12.2021. However, there is a dispute regarding filing an appeal on 04.12.2021. The contentions of the learned counsel regarding the participation of disciplinary authority, as presenting officer, this court is not going into that aspect, at this juncture leaving it open to the petitioner to canvass before the Appellate authority. 11. Given the facts and circumstances, without going into various grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, rebutted by the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the proceedings vide VLC/Estt./Sp.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. It is open to the petitioner to raise additional grounds, if any, within two (3) weeks from today. The learned Appellate authority shall dispose of the 5 appeal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order as per the Rules. 12. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 11.02.2025 KA 6 160 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 2116/2025 Date: 11.02.2025 KA