APHC010437012024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 7th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 22349 OF 2024 Between: 1. TADIGADAPA NAGA SRINIVAS RAJU, S/o.T.Janakirama Raju Aged 46 years, Occ. Clerk (Dismissed) R/o.H.No.2-129, Mettagudem Village T.Narsapuram Mandal, Eluru District Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep.by its Principal Secretary Cooperation Department, AP Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District 2. The District Cooperative Officer, Eluru, Eluru District, AP 3. The Divisional Cooperative Officer, Nuzivid, Eluru District, AP 4. The T Narsapuram Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society, regd.No.E1481, T.Narsapuram Village And Mandal, Eluru District, rep.by its CEO 5. The Chair Person, Official PIC, T.narsapuram PACS T.Narsapuram,Eluru District, AP ...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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.2024-25 Dt. 19-09- 2024 issued by the 5th respondent by dismissing the petitioner from service as clerk in T.Narsapuram PACS without there being any misconduct, without conducting necessary enquiry by following the procedure as contemplated in service regulations to the employees of the Primary Agriculture Cooperative Credit Society as highly illegal, arbitrary exercise of power and violative of Art. 129 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the same and pass IA NO: 1 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 suspend the operation of the proceedings in Rc.No. /2024-25 dt.19-09-2024 issued by the 5th respondent pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: YASWANTH GADE Counsel for the Respondents: SURAGANI VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI ORDER: The Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.2024-25 Dt. 19-09-2024 issued by the 5th respondent by dismissing the petitioner from service as clerk in T.Narsapuram PACS without there being any misconduct, without conducting necessary enquiry by following the procedure as contemplated in service regulations to the employees of the Primary Agriculture Cooperative Credit Society as highly illegal, arbitrary exercise of power and violative of Art. 129 of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the same and pass…” 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that, he has been working as a Clerk in the 4th respondent-Society and has discharged his duties diligently without any blemish. Pursuant to an enquiry ordered under Section 51 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 31.07.2023, recommending action against the erstwhile Managing Committee and CEO for mismanagement/misappropriation of Society funds. Based on the said report, the 2nd respondent directed disciplinary action against the Society staff for allegedly failing to bring the CEO’s lapses to the notice of the Managing Committee. Accordingly, the 5th respondent issued a memo to the petitioner alleging negligence and dereliction of duty. The petitioner sought the Section 51 enquiry report and the findings of the competent authorities to enable him to submit an effective explanation, but the same were not furnished. Instead, the 5th respondent issued a charge memo dated 22.03.2024, framing a new charge and directing the petitioner to submit his explanation within seven days, thereby denying him the relevant documents necessary to effectively defend himself. The charge framed in the charge memo is as follows: “CHARGE:-That he failed to submit the explanation within stipulated time to the undersigned which discloses his negligence and disobedience towards the instructions of this Superiors and on the other hand he derelicted his legitimate duties." “ALLEGATION:- The undersigned observed that the employee concerned kept quiet for 10 days which exhibits his intentional negligence and disobedience towards the instructions of the undersigned and he submitted a letter seeking 15 days time for submission of explanation after expiry of time limit of 10 days." 3. As the 5th respondent failed to furnish the Section 51 enquiry report and the findings of the JR/DCO, the petitioner again requested the same vide letter dated 30.03.2024. However, without furnishing the documents, the 5th respondent appointed Smt.A.Anantha Kumari, Advocate, as the Domestic Enquiry Officer vide proceedings dated 25.04.2024. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer, submitted his written explanation and answered the questions put forth by the Management Representative, and the Enquiry Officer submitted her report dated 06.07.2024 without properly recording findings on the charges as to whether were proved or not. Thereafter, the 5th respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 20.08.2024 proposing dismissal from service based on the enquiry report and the PIC Committee’s decision. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 09.09.2024, but the PIC Committee, without duly considering the same, proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from service. Hence the Writ Petition. 4. Heard Sri K.Chidambara, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri G.Yaswanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Varun Shyam, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I and Sri Suragani Vijaya Kumar, representing Sri Krishna Vamsi, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that after conclusion of the enquiry under Section 51 of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act (herein after referred to as ‘the APCS Act’), the competent authority issued statutory directions under Section 54 of the APCS Act vide proceedings in Rc.No.764/2022/C, dated 14.02.2024, whereby the role of the society staff as mentioned in Para No.10 of the said report recommended for initiation of disciplinary action against the staff including the petitioner herein. Pursuant to the same, a memo, dated 20.02.2024, was issued asking the petitioner to submit his explanation within a period of ten (10) days to the Chairperson, T.Narsapuram, PACS. On 04.03.2024, petitioner submitted a requisition to the 4th respondent asking to furnish a copy of Section 51 enquiry report findings of JR/DCO & Direction of the DR issued under Section 54 of the Act to enable the petitioner to give reply and sought time to submit explanation for a period of fifteen (15) days upon receipt of such documents. Thereafter, on 19.03.2024, a reminder was issued by the 4th respondent acknowledging his request for supply of Section 51 enquiry report without furnishing the same, had again asked the petitioner to submit his explanation without any further delay. Thereafter, the petitioner has also made another representation dated 19.03.2024 reiterating his request for enquiry report along with all the findings of D.C.O. under Section 51 of the APCS Act. Thereafter, again on 20.03.2024, petitioner submitted another representation for enquiry report. Thereafter, on 22.03.2024, the 4th respondent issued charge memo, where under the relevant reads as follows: As Sri Tadigadapa Naga Srinivasa Raju, Cashier, T.Narsapuram PACS failed to submit the explanation to the undersigned within stipulated time, the following charge is framed against him. Charge: That he failed to submit the explanation within stipulated time to the undersigned which discloses his negligence and disobedience towards the instructions of his Superiors and on the other hand he derilicted his legitimate duties. Allegation: The undersigned observed that the employee concerned kept quiet for 10 days which exhibits his intentional negligence and disobedience towards the instructions of the undersigned and he submitted a letter seeking 15 days time for submission of explanation after expiry of time limit of 10 days. In the reference 5th cited, the employees concerned submitted a letter wherein the undersigned was requested to furnish the findings of Section 51 Inquiry report and direction issued u/s 54 of APCS Act 1964 and seeking the time for 15 days to submit their explanation to the undersigned. The due date for submission of explanation is on 19.3.2024. The undersigned furnished a copy of Section 54 direction issued to the PIC Committee of T.Narsapuram PACS to the employees. As such, the lapse on the part of the employee is not excusable and he is liable for further course of disciplinary action. (A copy of the findings of the Section 51 Inquiry report is furnished as requested by the employee) for submission of explanation to the undersigned to proceed further in the matter. In view of the above negligence and disobedience towards the instructions of the undersigned and serious irregularities noticed as per the findings of the Section 51 Inquiry report, as he failed to bring the lapses of the Chief Executive Officer of the Society to the notice of the Managing Committee, Sri Tadigadapa Naga Srinivasa Raju, Cashier, T.Narsapuram PACS is directed to submit his explanation to the Charge and allegation leveled against him within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of this Charge Memo to the undersigned. Failing which it will be treated that he has no explanation to offer and further action will be initiated as per the material evidence available with this Office. 6. A plain reading of the above charge would clearly establish that a charge was framed against the delinquent on the ground that he failed to submit his explanation within a stipulated time which amounts to negligence and disobedience towards of his superiors and on the other hand he derilicted his legitimate duties. 7. Upon receipt of this charge memo dated 22.03.2024, petitioner again made a request to furnish the report under Section 51 of the Act on 30.03.2024 and again on 16.04.2024. Without furnishing any report as requested by the petitioner, the Chairperson of the Persons in-charge Committee, T.Narasapuram PACS, T.Narasapuram, decided to conduct domestic enquiry and appointed Smt. Allamsetti Santha Kumar, Advocate, Chintalapudi, Panel Advocate of the DCCB as Domestic Inquiry Officer. The Domestic Enquiry was held on 06.07.2024. Report of such Inquiry was submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 06.07.2024 holding that it is a major misconduct. 8. Basing on the same, a show cause notice was issued on 20.08.2024, whereby punishment of dismissal from service is proposed and to which petitioner had submitted his explanation stating that the enquiry report was not annexed to the show cause notice served on him and also made a request to furnish the domestic enquiry report. Petitioner has also submitted a detailed explanation to the disciplinary authority. Without considering the same, the respondents passed the orders impugned in the Writ Petition dismissing the petitioner from service as cashier of T.N.Narasapuram PACS. Aggrieved by the same, the above Writ Petition is filed. 9. The case of the petitioner is that, pursuant to the directions of the District Cooperative Officer, disciplinary action was proposed against the petitioner and other employees on the allegation that they failed to bring to the notice of the higher authorities the alleged misdeeds and financial irregularities committed by the then C.E.O. of the Society. An enquiry under Section 51 of the Act was conducted and a report was submitted, pursuant to which the District Cooperative Officer issued directions under Section 54 of the Act, observing that disciplinary action is required to be initiated against certain employees, including the petitioner. When a memo was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation, he requested the respondents to furnish a copy of the Section 51 enquiry report and the directions issued under Section 54. However, the Section 51 enquiry report was not furnished to him. Instead, a charge was framed against the petitioner alleging that he had failed to submit his explanation within fifteen (15) days to the notice and had thereby committed dereliction of duty and disobeyed the instructions of the higher authorities. A domestic enquiry was thereafter ordered, and an Enquiry Officer, who was a Panel Advocate of their financial bank was appointed. However, the enquiry officer dwell into various other issues which are not part of the charge memo and submitted report, basing on which action impugned in the Writ Petition was taken against the petitioner by dismissing him from service. 10. The 5th respondent, on behalf of the 4th and 5th respondents, filed a counter-affidavit stating that, pursuant to the enquiry conducted under Section 51 of the APCS Act, certain directions were issued by the District Cooperative Officer under Section 54 of the Act. In pursuance thereof, a notice was issued to the petitioner vide the memo referred to above; however, the petitioner failed to submit his explanation and instead repeatedly sought a copy of the Section 51 enquiry report. It is further stated that, despite being afforded several opportunities, the petitioner did not submit his explanation and that such conduct amounted to disobedience of the instructions of the higher authorities. Accordingly, the said charge was framed against him and, after affording due opportunity, a domestic enquiry was conducted by an Enquiry Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the charge against the petitioner as proved. Thereafter, the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to submit his explanation and, upon consideration of the same, the respondent-Society passed an order terminating his services. The respondents contend that there was no irregularity or illegality in the disciplinary proceedings or in the order of termination. 11. As seen from the record, despite the petitioner making repeated requests for a copy of the enquiry report under Section 51 of the Act, which was necessary to enable him to submit an effective reply to the directions of the District Cooperative Officer and the consequential disciplinary proceedings, the respondents failed to furnish the said report. Pursuant thereto, a memo was issued calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. However, despite his repeated requests, the respondents did not furnish the enquiry report or the relevant findings to enable the petitioner to submit an effective reply. Instead, on the ground of non-submission of the explanation, the respondents initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by framing the following charge: As Sri Tadigadapa Naga Srinivasa Raju, Cashier, T.Narsapuram PACS failed to submit the explanation to the undersigned within stipulated time, the following charge is framed against him. Charge: That he failed to submit the explanation within stipulated time to the undersigned which discloses his negligence and disobedience towards the instructions of his Superiors and on the other hand he derilicted his legitimate duties. Allegation: The undersigned observed that the employee concerned kept quiet for 10 days which exhibits his intentional negligence and disobedience towards the instructions of the undersigned and he submitted a letter seeking 15 days time for submission of explanation after expiry of time limit of 10 days. In the reference 5th cited, the employees concerned submitted a letter wherein the undersigned was requested to furnish the findings of Section 51 Inquiry report and direction issued u/s 54 of APCS Act 1964 and seeking the time for 15 days to submit their explanation to the undersigned. The due date for submission of explanation is on 19.3.2024. The undersigned furnished a copy of Section 54 direction issued to the PIC Committee of T.Narsapuram PACS to the employees. As such, the lapse on the part of the employee is not excusable and he is liable for further course of disciplinary action. (A copy of the findings of the Section 51 Inquiry report is furnished as requested by the employee) for submission of explanation to the undersigned to proceed further in the matter. 12. In view of the above negligence and disobedience towards the instructions of the undersigned and serious irregularities noticed as per the findings of the Section 51 Inquiry report, as he failed to bring the lapses of the Chief Executive Officer of the Society to the notice of the Managing Committee, Sri Tadigadapa Naga Srinivasa Raju, Cashier, T.Narsapuram PACS is directed to submit his explanation to the Charge and allegation leveled against him within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of this Charge Memo to the undersigned. Failing which it will be treated that he has no explanation to offer and further action will be initiated as per the material evidence available with this Office. 13. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated pursuant to the enquiry conducted under Section 51 and the directions issued under Section 54 of the APCS Act, alleging intentional negligence and insubordination on the part of the petitioner and other employees. On the basis of the said allegations, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and, relying upon the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, further action was taken against the petitioner. However, the record discloses that, despite the petitioner’s repeated requests for a copy of the Section 51 enquiry report and the findings/directions issued under Section 54 of the APCS Act, the same were not furnished to him, thereby depriving him of a reasonable and effective opportunity to submit his explanation to the allegations leveled against him. 14. Though several requests were made, the same were not supplied to the petitioner, and the respondents initiated disciplinary action on the ground that non-submission of the explanation amounted to negligence and disobedience. A charged employee is entitled to seek information to submit his reply to the charges leveled against him. If at all such material is not supplied and the employee is prevented from putting forth his defence in an effective manner, it would be nothing but deprivation of his right to contest the matter effectively, which is nothing but a violation of the principles of natural justice. It is apparent from the record that initially the enquiry was sought to be initiated pursuant to the directions under Section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, based on the enquiry report under Section 51 of the Act. Whereas now, the enquiry was sought to be initiated on the ground of disobedience and negligence, that too for the reason that he requested for the report under Section 51 to submit his explanation. Thus, the action of the respondent- Society is in violation of the principles of natural justice, and the enquiry conducted is also contrary to the scope of the charge that was leveled against the petitioner. Basing on the same, the termination is contrary and illegal, and the same is liable to be set aside. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.2024-25 dated 19.09.2024, is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service. It is open to the respondents, if so advised, to proceed against the petitioner as per the directions issued under Section 54 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders granted earlier if any, also shall stand closed. ________________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Dated: 07.09.2026 M K K 139 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Writ Petition No. 22349 of 2024 Date: 07.09.2026 M K K