Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Between vs The Krishna District Cooperative ... on 4 July, 2024

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
                    +WRIT PETITION No.22015 OF 2005
                              %04.07.2024
#Between:
  Nali Sree Devi, D/o N.Prahalada Rao, Aged about 29 years, R/o D.No.21-
  9-25/4, Madhura Nagar, Vijayawada-11, Krishna District.
                                                          ...PETITIONER
                                  AND
  1. The Krishna District Cooperative Central bank Limited, Rep. by its
     General Manager, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

                                                       ...RESPONDENT:

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. Sri. Sodum Anvesha Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. Sri. A.Rajendra Babu

The Court made the following:

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI *HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N +WRIT PETITION No.22015 OF 2005 %04.07.2024 #Between:

Nali Sree Devi, D/o N.Prahalada Rao, Aged about 29 years, R/o D.No.21- 9-25/4, Madhura Nagar, Vijayawada-11, Krishna District.

...PETITIONER AND

1. The Krishna District Cooperative Central bank Limited, Rep. by its General Manager, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

...RESPONDENT:

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 04.07.2024

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?

Yes/No

_______________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N This Court made the following Order:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking the following relief:

"... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings dt: 30.08.2004 in Ref.No.Adm.No.39/2004-A2 of the respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unsustainable, unreasonable, void and against the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and pass..."

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the

respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner while

working as a Manager at the respondent Bank during 16.11.2001 to 09.01.2003

was alleged to have been involved in misappropriation of funds of the society.

4. An inspection report was submitted to the Bank by the Assistant General

Manager after conducting inspection under Section 53 of Andhra Pradesh Co-

operative Societies Act, 1964. It is alleged that the petitioner along with Ex-

secretary and Supervisors of the respondent Bank were charged with

misappropriation of amount of Rs. 13,23,300/-. It is further alleged that the

petitioner was specifically responsible for misappropriation of amount of

Rs.2,10,400/-. It is alleged that fourteen loans in the name of dead persons were

disbursed during the tenure of the petitioner as a Manager in the respondent

Bank.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Disciplinary Authority

basing on the inspection report has passed an impugned order dated 30.08.2004 whereby the petitioner was awarded the punishment of scaling down

her scale to minimum in the cadre. The learned counsel also submits that the

surcharge order dated 20.01.2004 was issued fixing the responsibility of the

officers of the Bank involved in the alleged misappropriation and the petitioner

was alleged to have been responsible for disbursement of loans in the names of

the deceased, loans drawn by forging instruments in the name of the members

who sold away their lands and whose documents were returned and further

allegation that loans were drawn by forging the signatures of the loan applicants.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the surcharge order was

challenged and the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal in O.A.No.63 of 2004

has set aside the surcharge order insofar as petitioner is concerned.

6. Attention of the Court is drawn to the findings of the Disciplinary Authority

wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner had minimal role insofar as the

misappropriation is concerned and that the petitioner had followed procedure

insofar as disbursement of loans is concerned. The role of the Secretary to

obtain signatures of the loanees on vouchers and bonds and the responsibility

of the Secretary to pass orders on the vouchers for payment of loan amount is

different and distinct when compared to the role of the petitioner as Manager of

the branch. It is also observed that the petitioner has executed the documents in

good faith. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the very

basis for the order under challenge is the surcharge order which has been set

aside by the Tribunal. The copy of the order passed in O.A.No.63 of 2004 is also

placed on record. Learned counsel further submits that when the findings of the Disciplinary Authority also imply that the petitioner has executed the documents

in good faith after loan applications were forwarded as per the procedure laid by

the Secretary and Supervisors of the branch. It is also submitted that there was

no personal gain to the petitioner and all keeping this in view the Tribunal had

discharged the liability as on to the petitioner in the appeal. It is also submitted

that the appeal before the Tribunal has attained finality and prayed for allowing

the Writ Petition.

7. Learned Standing counsel for the respondent submits that as per Section

60 of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, the surcharge

proceedings and enquiry proceedings are different and distinct and that they do

not overlap. Learned counsel also submits that the role of the petitioner as a

Manager is wider when compared to the role of the Secretary or Supervisor. The

petitioner ought to have been more responsible insofar as disbursing of loans is

concerned and that the petitioner failed to discharge her duty as a Manger. It is

also submitted that there was a clear violation of the procedure laid down by the

Bank insofar as disbursement of loans is concerned. As such, prays for

dismissal of the Writ Petition.

8. Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel and perusal of

record. It is evident that the petitioner was charged of having misappropriated

funds of the respondent Bank by disbursing loans in the name of the deceased

persons. The findings in the surcharge order dated 20.01.2004 would indicate

that the inspecting officer in the cross-examination has admitted that the

petitioner did not commit any misappropriation and that the surcharge action is recommended for dereliction of duties only. He further admitted that there was

no willful dereliction of duties on the part of the petitioner. It is categorically

stated that the Ex.secretary and Ex.supervisors have mislead the petitioner in

disbursement of the loans. It is also observed that the petitioner acted in good

faith and reposing confidence on her colleagues at the branch, had disbursed

the loans. It is not disputed by the respondent that the surcharge order is set

aside insofar as the petitioner is concerned and that the same has also attained

finality. Considering the same, the punishment imposed on the petitioner scaling

down her pay to the minimum in the cadre would be grossly disproponiate to the

charges framed against the petitioner. It is also categorically stated that the

respondent has accepted the order of the Tribunal. Having implemented the

order of the Tribunal the respondent cannot punish the petitioner for no fault of

the petitioner.