IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARC TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN^ WRIT PETITION NO: 4915 OF 2025 Betwe^ Gajula Rama Krishna, S/o late Sanyasi Rao, Age 55 years, Occ: Branch Manager (under suspension) DCCB Ltd, Seethanagaram Branch Vizianagaram District. ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture and Cooperative Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. The Commissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawda, Krishna District. District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer Vizianagaram District. The District Cooperative Central Bank, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer, Salur Branch, Vizianagaram. The District Cooperative Central Bank, Rep by its Chief Executive Officer Seethanagaram Branch, Vizianagaram District. The District Cooperative Officer, Parvathipuram, Parvathiipuram Manyam Vizianagaram. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ...RESPONDENTS 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 an Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring in action of the 3'^^ respondent C.O./Estt/2022-23 suspended order Proceeding .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 issued m 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 direct the respondents to dispose of the charge on the basis of surcharge 60(1) enquiry of K Madan Kumar report dated 02-09-2024. lA No: 1 OF 2025 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 issued subsistence allowance from March 2023 on wards petitioner pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH.S.V.SURAJ Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: ASST.GP FOR SERVICES-II Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 6: Ms. V.UMA DEVI, SC FOR DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010088352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (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: 4915/2025 Between; ...PETITIONER Gajula Rama Krishna AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.CH S VSURAJ Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.VUMADEV1 2.GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following; 2 Jhe 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 .O./Estt/2022-23 dated 20.02.2023 and directed the respondents o reinstate petitioner into service as per Regulation No. 10.8.3 suspension was elapsed by one year by 19.02.2024 and direct respondents to dispose of the charge on the basis of surcharge 60(1) enquiry of K.Madan Kumar report dated pass such other order or orders....” as the 02.09.2024 and to 2. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of 3'^ 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 Assistant Manager 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 he submitted explanation 05.09.2023. But the inquiry is not completed so far. However 27.03.2023, framing single charge for which on as suspension 3 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. 4. Heard Sri CH.S.V.Suraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned 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, respondents have not done any such review. Learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 6 has 6. 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 decide 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 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 suspension, except recording note file, the decision of such review has never 4 been communicated to the petitioner. Further, the note file does provide the reasons on which the decision made to not revoke not clearly 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. 8. In M/s.Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Others', the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the record reasons in support of its conclusions while quasi-judicial authority must exercising appellate powers. 9. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Contract & Leasing Kota Court held that to sub-serve the Department, Works vs. M/S.Shukla & Brothers^, the Hon’ble Apex 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. 10. 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. 11. However, as the decision of the respondents in reviewing suspension is not challenged in the present Writ Petition, until and unless communicated, petitioner will not be in a On this sole point, the Writ Petition is such decision is position to lay challenge to the same, disposed of directing the respondents 3 ^(2010) 9 see 496 ^ (2010) 4 see 485 ' (2008) 15 see 711 J 5 to 6 to communicate the reasons within 15 days from date of receipt of order as found from the note file enabling the petitioner to work at remedies. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A.VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 1 SECTION OFFICER To, The Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture & Cooperative Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. The Commissioner for Cooperation & Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawda, Krishna District. The Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd, Vizianagaram District. The Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank, Salur Branch, Vizianagaram. The Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank, Seethanagaram Branch, Vizianagaram District. The District Cooperative Officer, Parvathipuram, Parvathiipuram Manyam Vizianagaram. One CC to Sri CH.S.V.Suraj, Advocate [OPUC] 8.^ Two CCs to GP for Services-ll, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9./One CC to Ms. V.Uma Devi, SC for District Co-operative Central Bank Three CD Copies. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. X 10. gi HIGH COURT gi DATED:27/03/2025 ORDER WP.No.4915 of 2025 of ^ . Current Sectionj^/ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS