APHC010342432024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 17433/2024 Between: 1. PERARAPU SATYANARAYANA, S/O SUBBA RAO AGED 58 YEARS, OCC CEO (UNDER SUSPENSION) GANDEPALLI PACS R/O. D.NO 2-24, RAJIKAVEEDI, GANDEPALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE OFFICER, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. THE DIVISIONAL COOPERATIVE OFFICER, KAKINADA,EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. GANDEPALLI PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY LTD, GANDEPALLI, PEDDAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, REP BY. ITS PERSON IN CHARGE. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2. SRINIVAS BASAVA 2 The Court made the following ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “pleased to issue any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 4th respondent in terminating the petitioner from service through Resolution No.7 dated 26.09.2023 is illegal arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and violation of orders passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.39415 of 2022 and to consequently, set aside the same and further directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all benefits and to pass”. 2. In fact, this is a second round of litigation. Initially, when the respondents have terminated the services of the petitioner vide resolution dated 25.03.2022, the same was assailed before this Court in W.P.No.39415 of 2022. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by setting aside impugned proceedings therein on ground of non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. In fact, based on the directions issued by this Court in the above said Writ Petition, the 4th respondent has issued notice on 16.09.2023. On perusal of the said notice, it clearly depicts that they have issued notice to the petitioner only to submit the explanation as per the directions of this Court. Reply to the said notice, the petitioner has submitted his objections on 18.09.2023. Though he has raised several objections, surprisingly, without considering any objections, the 4th respondent vide resolution dated 26.09.2023, once again terminated the services of the petitioner. Hence, the Writ Petition. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the respondents have not followed the procedure contemplated under the Service Regulations (for short 8the Regulations9) of the 4th respondent. In Chapter-V(7) of the Regulations, 3 there is a procedure contemplated for disciplinary action. According to the same, during the entire enquiry process, the employees shall be permitted to verify and take extracts from relevant records as required by him. The enquiry officer may however refuse such permission if in his opinion such records are not relevant to the enquiry by recording the reasons in writing. The enquiry officer shall submit his detailed enquiry report within a reasonable time. The competent authority shall consider the report and imposed suitable punishment. The show cause notice shall be served on the employee giving an opportunity to make further representation. The competent authority shall consider the representation and pass final punishment orders. But in the instant case, the respondents have not followed any of the procedure contemplated under the Regulations. To prove his assertion, he has relied on the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer on 17.03.2022. In the enquiry report, there are no independent findings, reasons or verification of the recorded by the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer extracted only the charges against the petitioner and he further mentioned that an Advocate has represented on behalf of the petitioner and finally mentioned that as per the enquiry conducted under Section 51 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, the enquiry officer has recommended to take action against the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that even the notice given also says that as directed by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition they have issued notice and submit a report within five days. Further, the petitioner has raised his objections on 18.09.2023. But surprisingly, the respondents have not considered any of the objections while passing the impugned resolution. 4 4. In fact, as per the Regulations of Chapter-V (7) clearly contemplates to provide material/relevant extracts of records to the persons by the enquiry officer and after providing proper opportunity with regard to documents, the enquiry officer has to submit a detailed report with regard to allegations. Thereafter, the petitioner shall be provided with an opportunity to raise objections and the competent authority shall consider the objections filed by the petitioner while passing final punishment order. But in the instant case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed objections with regard to non-supply of material/ documents by the enquiry officer. It is further submitted in the objections that the enquiry under Section 51 of A.P. Co-operative Societies Act (for short 8the Act) was completed and proceedings under Section 60 of the Act was assailed before this Court by filing a writ petition. But none of the aspects were considered while passing final orders in the impugned resolution. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the Regulations and the same may be set aside. Learned counsel finally submits that the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation for grant of subsistence allowance to the respondent authorities. 5. Reply to the said submissions, leaned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 has submitted that the petitioner has not assailed enquiry report nor the manner in which the enquiry was conducted. The main allegation of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent has not considered the objections filed by the petitioner while passing final order. But in fact, the 4th respondent society is a small society and they have complied all the conditions/requirements while passing the impugned orders as 5 suggested / directed by this Court and they also issued notice before passing the order. Hence, the respondents have fully complied with the directions of this Court as well as the Regulations. Hence, the impugned order is in conformity with the procedure contemplated as per Chapter-V(7) of the Regulations. 6. Considering the submissions made by the both the learned counsel and on perusal of the enquiry report, it is noticed that the enquiry officer has not recorded any independent findings or reasons and he only extracted the charges and allegations made by third parties and he has not even made any findings with regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and straight away, he has given a report for taking action against the petitioner. Further, this Court in earlier writ petition, directed the respondents to provide an opportunity to the petitioner before taking any action. To that, the respondents issued notice on 16.09.2023. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his objections. But the respondents without considering any objections, passed the final orders. In fact, as per Chapter-V(7), there is a clear mandate that the competent authority shall provide an opportunity to the petitioner and pass final orders by recording reasons. 7. In fact, the identical issue was considered by the Hon9ble Apex Court in Catena of Judgments and held that the quasi judicial authority or the administrative authority while passing order has to give reasons. Any order devoid of reasons cannot be said to be in compliance of principle of natural justice. In order to comply with the principles of natural justice, the authority 6 must consider the objections filed by the petitioner and thereafter, appropriate orders should be passed. 8. In the instant case, on perusal of the enquiry report and impugned orders, the respondents have not mentioned any reasons or findings while passing the final orders. Hence, this Court is of the view that the respondents have not complied with the procedure contemplated under Chapter-V(7) of the Regulations. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to once again consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with Chapter-V(7) of the Regulations and the respondent authorities are further directed to consider the petitioner9s request for grant of subsistence allowance in accordance with law within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date:28.01.2026 KNN 7 293 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH W.P.No.17433 of 2024 28.01.2026 KNN