9 APHC010130532020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 7920 OF 2020 Between: 1. S. Kishore Kumar, S/o.late S.Koti Lingam, (DIED) Aged 58 years, Ex- Manager, A.P. Markfed, R/o. Flat No.201, Block-C, KSR Complex, 0pp. Eenadu Office, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam-13. Sangisetty Mahita Kumari,, W/o. Late S. Kishore Kumar, aged 63 years, R/o. D.No.50-1-23/45, Flat No.201, Block-C Eenadu Road, Seethammadhara, 2. K.S.R. Complex, Visakhapatnam-530013 Sangisetty Krishna Kumar, S/o. Late S. Kishore Kumar, aged 34 years, R/o. D.No.50-1-23/45, Flat No.201, Block-C, Eenadu Road, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam-530013. (Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 brought on record as LRs to the deceased 1 petitioner as per Court Order dated 18.09.2024 vide I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P No 7920 of 2020) 3. K.S.R. Complex, St ...PETITIONERS AND Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative, Marketing Federation Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, 55-17-2, 5^'^ Floor, Staling Corporate Building, Near CGO Complex, Industrial Estate, Autonagar, Vijayawada-520007. ...RESPONDENT 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 to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Respondent and culminated into the proceedings dated 25.11.2019 in dismissing the Petitioner from service as arbitrary, illegal and violative Principles of Natural Justice, consequently to set aside the proceedings dated 25.11.2019 and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits including continuity of service, promotions, increments and other service benefits. Consequently the Honble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay the back wages, leave encashment, pensionary benefits, gratuity and all other incidental calculated on the basis of notional promotional cadre of the 1st Petitioner service benefits (Late S. Kishore Kumar) with all consequential benefits and order or orders as this Hon’ble Court pass such other may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice. (Main Prayer amended/substituted as per Court Order dated 30.08.2025 vide lA No.2 of 2024 in WP No.7920 of 2020) lA NO: 2 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 to direct the Respondents to pay the back wages, leave encashment. pensionary benefits. gratuity and all other incidental service benefits calculated on the basis of notional promotional cadre of the 1®* Petitioner (Late S. Kishore Kumar) with all consequential benefits Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI G. RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent: M/s. Y. MAHA LAKSHMI The Court made the following order: APHC010130532020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 7920/2020 Between: 1.S. KISHORE KUMAR,, S/O.LATE S.KOTI LINGAM, AGED 58 YEARS, - EX-MANAGER, A.P MARKFED, R/0. FLAT NO.201, BLOCK-C, KSR COMPLEX, OPR EENADU OFFICE, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM-13. 2.SANGISETTY MAHITA KUMARI,, W/0. LATE S. KISHORE KUMAR, AGED 63 YEARS, R/0. D.NO.50-1-23/45, FLAT NO.201, BLOCK-C, K.S.R. COMPLEX, VISAKHAPATNAM-530013. EENADU ROAD, SEETHAMMADHARA, 3.SANGISETTY KRISHNA KUMAR,, S/0. LATE S. KISHORE KUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS, R/0. D.NO.50-1-23/45 FLAT NO.201, BLOCK-C, EENADU ROAD, SEETHAMMADHARA, VISAKHAPATNAM-530013. PETITIONER NOS. 2 AND 3 BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LRS TO THE DECEASED 1ST PETITIONER AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 18.09.2024 VIDE I.A.N0.1 OF 2024 IN W.P K.S.R. COMPLEX, NO 7920 OF 2020. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COOPERATIVE, Marketing Federation Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, 55-17-2, 5th Floor, Staling Corporate Building, Near CGO Complex, Industrial Estate, Autonagar, Vijayawada-520007. ...RESPONDENT 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 Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Respondent and culminated dismissing the Petitioner from Principles of Natural Justice. 25.11.2019 and direct the with all into the proceedings dated 25.11.2019 i: service as arbitrary, illegal and violative consequently to set aside the proceedings dated respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service in ^ may be 2074Tn'wPNa7920of2r2a''™" lA NO: 1 OF 9n9A Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances stated ^.14.0 ^ . u ■ support of the petition, the High Court mav be oleased pleased to bring the following as legal representatives of the deceased Road, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatam and p^ss lA NO: 2 OF ?n9d in ^ f" the circumstances stated n the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be oleased pleased to direct the Respondents to pay the back wages learencastnent pensiona^ benefits, gratuity and all other incidental ® calculated on the basis of notional (Late S. Kishore Kumar) with all lA NO: 1 OF 202.*^ in the'^affi^avk Hed a' ^-dumstances stated Petition and pass ^^-Pdosentation the above Writ !AN0l20F 2025 service benefits promotional cadre of the 1st Petitioner consequential benefits and pass Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances stated in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased 3 may be please to grant leave to the petitioners to file the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 1 in W.RNo. 7920 of 2020, before this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent: 1.Y MAHALAKSHMI The Court made the following: ORDER:- Heard Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Y.Maha Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 2. During the pendency of the writ petition the writ petitioner died and his legal representatives have been brought on record vide order dated 18.09.2024. The present writ petition is filed challenging the order of dismissal of the 1®^ petitioner from service. The 1®* petitioner while discharging his duties as District Manager in Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited (A.P.Markfed), was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 26.07.2018. 3. The allegations against the 1®* petitioner are that he was required to procure Black Gram through the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies (PACS) of Allada and Chellavanipeta in the Srikakulam District, and in that process, he had committed certain irregularities. 4. 4 5. In connection thereto, a Charge Memo dated 16.10.2018 was petitioner to submit his explanation. He had issued, requiring the 1 accordingly submitted his explanation on 02.11.2018. Subsequently, an Inquiry Officer was appointed by proceedings dated 27..11.2018. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 07.06.2019, stating that the charges against 1®‘ petitioner were proved, except for charge No.5. 6. On communication of the inquiry report to the 1®* petitioner, on 16.10.2019, he submitted an explanation on 28.10.2019. Thereafter, the respondent passed the impugned proceedings dismissing the 1®* petitioner from service. 7. The brief facts of the case leading to the passing of the order of dismissal from service are that A.P.Markfed was entrusted to procure 1,00,000 Metric Tons of Black Gram and 32,000 Metric Tons of Green Gram from the Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Societies (PACS) for NAFED Rs.5400/- per Quintal on a commission basis of 2%. Accordingly, the 1"* petitioner was directed to procure the said quantities from the PACS. Pursuant thereto, agreements dated 08.06.2018 and 11.06.2018 were entered into at between A.P. Markfed and the PACS. 8. In compliance with the agreements, and after following the prescribed procedure, 475.25 Metric Tons of Black Gram, worth Rs.2,56,63,500/- were procured from Allada PACS, and 5,552.7 Metric Tons of Black Gram worth Rs.2,98,45,800/- were procured from 230 farmers 5 through Challavanipalem PACS between 18.06.2018 and 25.06.2018. The said stock was kept in the custody of the respondent on behalf of NAFED. NAFED had remitted the amounts towards the cost of the stock and incidental charges. However, the same was not remitted to the farmers. 9. Based on certain newspaper reports alleging irregularities in the procurement process, specifically, alleging that the Black Gram had been purchased from a dealer instead of from farmers. The 1^‘ petitioner was thus issued the Charge Memo. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, at the time of procurement, the details of individual farmers including the extent of land. Survey Numbers, and Aadhaar details, were duly entered into the TABS. Hence, it cannot be alleged that the stock was not purchased from the farmers. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that the entire procurement process was carried out in a transparent manner and no irregularities, as alleged by the respondent, were ever committed. It is further contended that though the Charge Memo alleged irregularities, no witnesses were examined during the enquiry to prove that the stock was purchased from dealers and not from farmers. It is further contended that the 1®* petitioner had furnished a detailed explanation dated 28.10.2019 to the Charge Memo, clearly explaining the procedure adopted by the petitioner in procuring the required stock. However, the same was not considered while passing the order of dismissal from service. 6 11. Respondent filed complaint and also on the adverse a counter affidavit stating that, based on the news item published in the newspapers, enquiry on 21.07.2018. The vide Proceedings in RC.No.2118/2018, dated the District Collector, Srikakulam, ordered for an Joint Collector, Srikakulam 18.09.2018, submitted a report to the District Collector after conducting an was done in the PACS centres and enquiry and stated that no procurement some of the stock was procured from the middlemen by creating documents in collusion with the MARKFED further contended that i false and the Society Employees. It is in pursuance thereof, the District Collector initiated petitioner and other employees who procuring the Black Gram from the the disciplinary action against the 1 were involved and committed irregularities iin middleman. Based on the same, the 1 petitioner was placed under suspension on 27.07.2018, charges were framed against the 1 petitioner, served on the 1®‘ petitioner on 16.10.2018. And was terminated from the and a Charge Memo was also after affording an opportunity, the 1"‘ petitioner services of MARKFED. 12. Considered the rival submissions. 13. The charges against the 1 was designated as a nodal petitioner are that the A.P.Markfed agency for procuring Black Gram and Green Gram from farmers to ensure them the minimum support price. The 1®' petitioner was entrusted with the alleged to have failed to responsibility of procuring the same; however, he was provide wide publicity for procurement and did not 7 establish procurement centres near Agricultural Market Committees (AMCs) where storage facilities were available. Instead, procurement was made from remote locations inaccessible to farmers, where there were no adequate storage facilities. It is further alleged that procurement was not made from j farmers but from private traders, thereby pocketing the difference between the minimum support price and the prevailing market price. The learned counsel petitioner argues that the stock so procured was stored in a godown. The 1®* petitioner was never involved in making payments to the farmers. The responsibility of disbursing the amounts to the farmers was with for the 1 A.P. Markfed; however, it did not make the payments. The farmers have thus approached this Court seeking payment for the stock purchased from them. It is only after this Court had directed the respondent to remit the sums that the payments were made to the farmers. Therefore, the allegation that the 1®‘ petitioner was monetarily benefited out of the said transaction is baseless. The basis for issuance of the Charge Memo is only a newspaper report. From the material, it appears that the respondent did not examine the trader from whom the petitioner allegedly procured the stock. For non-payment of the amount towards the procurement, the farmers have approached the Court seeking payment. Therefore, the allegation that the 1®‘ petitioner had procured the stock from the middlemen, without examining any witness and coming to such a conclusion, is perverse and without giving any finding as to the petitioner committed and the act that has financial irregularity that the 1 8 benefited him monetarily, and imposing a punishment of dismissal from is grossly disproportionate to the charges framed. service 14. As noted above after filing of the writ petition, the writ petitioner died and his legal representatives are brought on record, Having regard to the submissions advanced, this Court deems it fit to set aside the impugned proceedings holding that imposing the punishment of dismissal from service grossly disproportionate to the charges framed against the 1®‘ petitioner, further having regard to the fact that the 1^' petitioner is no more, the respondent is directed to pay the back consequential benefits to the 2"^' and 3^^ petitioners. as wages computed at 50% and grant all 15. With the above observation, the writ There shall be no order as to costs. petition is disposed of. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Federation Limited, 55-17-2, 5*^ Floor, State Cooperative, Marketing Staling Corporate Building, Near CGO Complex, Industrial Estate, Autonagar, Vijayawada-520007 2 ot Sri G. Rama Gopal, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to M/s. Y. Maha Lakshmi Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT T' DATED:18/09/2025 ORDER WP No. 7920 OF 2020 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS