IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) a //k THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH/o TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE O PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 3653 OF 2025 Between: K Simhachalam Naidu, S/o late Krishnam Naidu Age 56 years, Occ- Staff Assistant (under suspension) DCCB Ltd, Saluru Branch, Vizianagaram District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of AP, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture and Cooperative Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Commissioner for Cooperaton and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawda, Krishna District. 3. District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer Vizianagaram District 4. The District Cooperative Central Bank, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer, Salur Branch, Vizianagaram 5. The District Cooperative Central Bank, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer Ramabhadrapuram branch, Vizianagaram District 6. The District Cooperative Officer, Parvathipuram, Parvathiipuram Manyam Vizianagaram. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue an Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring in action of the 3rd respondent in may issued suspended order Proceeding C.O./Estt/2022-23 without following due process of law under dated 20-02-2023 section's 51, 52, 53 and 59 of A.P. Cooperative Society Act 1964 as illegal arbitrary highhanded and Violation of Articles 14, 21 of the constitution of India and volatile of Principle suspension Proceeding respondents to as suspension suspend the proceeding issued by the 6th respondent in Rc.No.361/2023-C dated 02-03-2024 against petitioner direct the respondents to dispose of the charge basis of Sec-51 enquiry. of Natural Justice and consequently Set aside the order C.O./Estt/2022-23 dated 20-02-2023 and directed the reinstate petitioner into service as per Regulation No. 10.8.3 was elapsed by one year by 19-02-2024 and also on the lA NO: 1 OF 202*; 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 stay of all the proceeding issued by the 6th Rc.No.361/2023-C dated 02-03-2024 respondent in against petitioner pending disposal of the write petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B KUMARA SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: GP FOR SERVICES-II Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6: SMT. The Court made the following: ORDER V UMA DEVI APHC010064412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 3653/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER K Simhachalam Naidu AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.B KUMARA SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.VUMADEV1 2.GP FOR COOPERATION 3.GP FOR SERVICES II 4.GP FOR COOPERATION 2 The Court made the following order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “...to issue an Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring in action of the 3'^'^ respondent in issued suspended order Proceeding C.O./Estt/2022-23 dated 20.02.2023 without following due process of law under section’s 51, 52, 53 and 59 of A.P. Cooperative Society Act 1964 as illegal arbitrary highhanded and violation of Articles 14, 21 of the constitution of India and volatile of Principle of Natural Justice and consequently Set aside the suspension Proceeding order C.O./Estt/2022-23 dated 20.02.2023 and directed the respondents to reinstate petitioner into service as per Regulation No. 10.8.3 as suspension was elapsed by one year by 19.02.2024 and also suspend the proceeding issued by the 6^'^ respondent in Rc.No.361/2023-C dated 02.03.2024 against petitioner direct the respondents to dispose of the charge on the basis of Sec-51 enquiry and to pass such other order or orders....” rd The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of 3 2. respondent in issuing proceedings C.O./Estt/2022-23, dated 20.02.2023, placing the petitioner under suspension, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to regulation No.10.8.3, besides in violation of Sections 51, 52, 53 and 59 of A.P. Cooperative Society Act, 1964 and consequently set aside the same. 3. Petitioner while working as Staff Assistant at Salur Branch was placed under suspension by impugned proceedings dated 20.02.2023, on the allegations that he involved in certain misappropriation of amounts. Petitioner submitted representation, later petitioner was issued charge memo dated 27.03.2023, framing single charge for which he submitted explanation on 3 05.09.2023. But the inquiry is not completed so far. However, as suspension orders were not revoked, petitioner has submitted representation requesting to review the same. Since, respondents have not reviewed the aforesaid suspension even after one year; the present writ petition came to be filed. Heard Sri CH.S.V.Suraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned 4. Assistant Government Pleader for Services-ll for respondents 1 and 2 and Ms V.Uma Devi, learned Standing counsel for the respondents 3 to 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while drawing attention to clause 5. 10.8.2, which deals with review of suspension cases contends that as petitioner completed more than one year of suspension, his case should have been considered for review in terms of same. However, no such review was undertaken. Learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 6 has produced the file in relation to ongoing inquiry. As per the note file dated 23.03.2024, the request of the petitioner for review of the suspension came to be considered and rejected. However, the respondents decided to release 100% subsistence allowance, pending inquiry. The learned counsel further submits that after the date of such review, petitioner is being paid 100% subsistence allowance, therefore, he cannot have any grievance and also 6. can’t contend that there is no review taken under. Perused the material on record and having considered the rival 7 submissions, this Court finds that though respondents have reviewed the 4 0k suspension, except recording note file, the decision of such review has never been communicated to the petitioner. Further, the note file does not clearly provide the reasons on which the decision made to not revoke suspension, rather to pay 100% subsistence allowance is made. Recording of reason and communicating the same are basic requirements to be adhered to lay quasi judicial authorities. In M/s.Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others^ , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions while exercising appellate powers. 8. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract & Leasing Kota vs. M/S.Shukla & Brothers^, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that to sub-serve the purpose of the justice delivery system, it is essential that the Courts should record reasons for its conclusions, whether disposing of the case at the admission stage or after a regular hearing. 9. In State of Rajasthan vs. Rajendra Prasad Jai^ the Hon’ble Apex Court held that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless. 10. However, as the decision of the respondents in reviewing suspension is not challenged in the present Writ Petition, until and unless such decision is communicated, petitioner will not be in a position to lay challenge to the 11. same. (2010) 9 see 496 ^ (2010) 4 see 485 " (2008) 15 see 711 5 On this sole point, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 3 to 6 to communicate the reasons within 15 days from date of receipt of order found from the note file enabling the petitioner to work at remedies. There i as shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed / . SD/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR SEdr^ToFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, ^ Government, Agriculture and Cooperative for Cooperaton and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawda, Krishna District. Bank Ltd, 3. The Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Vizianagaram District 6. The District Cooperative Officer Manyam Vizianagaram. 7. One CC to Sri B Kumara Swamy Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Smt. V Uma Devi, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for Services (I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 10. Three CD Copies Parvathipuram, Parvathiipuram [OUT] TF HIGH COURT DATED:27/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.3653 of 2025 ,=S 21 APX 2025 . Curreni sieotion DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS