Telangana High Court
R. Bhadragiri Rao vs The Commissioner Of Cooperation And … on 10 January, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.1828 of 2023
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“…. to declare the termination order R.C.No.Estt/E3/F282/2014-
15, dated 23.05.2015 issued by the respondent No.3 is null and void
as it violating the principles of natural justice including Article 14
and 21 of constitution of India and consequently direct the
respondents to release the petitioners all terminal benefits, forthwith
as petitioner is senior citizen is suffering from various ailments and
serious financial crisis, especially the gratuity with 18% interest from
the date of eligibility to date of payment and any other attendant
benefits to him….”
2) Heard Sri Goda Siva, learned senior counsel representing Sri
C.Yadagiri, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government
Pleader for Services-II appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt.S.A.V.
Ratnam, learned senior counsel, representing Sri Ravichettu
Guruprasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2
to 4.
3) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner is the employee of the respondent Bank.
However, based on certain complaints received about financial
irregularities in disbursement of SAO/CKCC loans to farmers and
also on benami names placed before the Commissioner of Cooperative
and Registrar of Cooperative Societies, an enquiry under Section 51 of
AP Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, was ordered vide proceedings
-2- PK, J
WP_1828_2023
dated 14.02.2014 duly appointing the District Cooperative Officer,
Nalgonda, as Enquiry Officer. After conducting the enquiry, the
Enquiry Officer has submitted his report dated 20.10.2014 holding
that B.Ramaiah, Branch Manager, NDCCB Branch, Deverkonda,
during his tenure as branch Manager has colluded with CEO’s of
PACSs, violated the loan policy intentionally, neglected/deviated the
basic CKC loaning Rules and Regulations and thereby committed
grave financial irregularities and misappropriated the total amount of
Rs.8,58,09,974/- and also suggested for recovery of the said amount
along with interest besides initiation of civil and criminal proceedings.
Based on the said Enquiry Report, the Registrar of Co-operative and
Commissioner of Co-operative Societies has suggested for initiation of
Disciplinary action against the petitioner. Accordingly, respondent
No.3 vide proceedings dated 17.10.2014 has appointed respondent
No.4 as Enquiry Officer to conduct domestic enquiry on the charges
levelled against the petitioner. Thereafter, based on the enquiry
report submitted by respondent No.4, a show cause notice dated
07.05.2015 was issued by respondent No.3 to the petitioner proposing
to terminate his service and calling for his explanation. Though
petitioner submitted representations on 14.05.2015 and 15.05.2015
requesting to supply enquiry report and also for granting 10 more
days time for submission of explanation, respectively, without
considering the same, the impugned termination order dated
-3- PK, J
WP_1828_2023
23.05.2015 was passed by respondent No.3. Learned senior counsel
has contended that though respondent No.1 suggested initiation of
action on the enquiry report, respondents 3 and 4 have added the
charges, which were already enquired into long back. Therefore, the
action of respondents 3 and 4 amounts to second enquiry and
therefore hit by the theory of double jeopardy, which is impermissible
under the law. Learned senior counsel has further contended that
the respondent Bank viz., The District Cooperative Central Bank
Limited is registered under Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act,
1964. The apex Bank i.e. financing Bank is Telangana State
Cooperative Apex Bank. Therefore, respondent No.2 is ‘State’ within
the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India and amenable to
writ jurisdiction. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that
the order of termination of services of an employee visits with civil
consequences of jeopardising not only himself but also livelihood of
the dependants. Therefore, before taking an action against the
employee and for putting an end to the tenure of an employee,
reasonable opportunity is required to be given in conducting domestic
enquiry duly complying with the principles of natural justice.
Further, the respondents have not followed Service Regulation 66 (VI)
to (IX) while conducting domestic enquiry. Hence, the learned senior
counsel prayed this Court to set aside the impugned termination
order dated 23.05.2015 passed by respondent No.3 and to direct the
-4- PK, J
WP_1828_2023
respondents to release all terminal benefits to the petitioner. In
support of his submissions, learned senior counsel has placed
reliance on:
i) Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai 1;
ii) Smt. Anjilamma v. The Labour Court-III at Hyderabad 2;
4) Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for
respondent-Bank has contended that there was misappropriation of
funds to the tune of Rs.9,27,21,107/- by way of sanction of crop
loans on bogus title deeds, fake pattadar passbooks, etc. besides
disbursement of Rs.12,33,73,498/- without obtaining Revenue
Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds from the borrowers duly violating
the loan policy and the said amount was treated as un-secured loans
by the Inspecting officer. Therefore, there was a total misappropriation
of Rs.21,60,94,605/- and at the relevant point of time petitioner was
the General Manager of respondent No.2 Bank. The criminal case
registered against the petitioner for misappropriation of funds is still
pending adjudication. Learned senior counsel has vehemently
contended on the maintainability of the writ petition and argued that
respondent No.2 Bank is not a State within the meaning of Article 12
of Constitution of India and therefore writ petition is not
maintainable. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. In
1 (1998) 8 SCC 1
2 1995 (2) A.P.L.J. 354 (HC)
-5- PK, J
WP_1828_2023support of her submissions, learned senior counsel has placed
reliance on the following judgments:
i) Thalappalam Services Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala 3;
iv) Dalip Singh v. State of U.P 6;
vi) Tara Chand Vyas v. Chairman & Disciplinary Authority 8; and
5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by
respective counsel and perused the record.
6) Though several contentions were urged by the learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner attacking the validity of the
impugned termination order, this Court is of the view that before
entering into the merits of the matter, it is just and necessary to deal
with the objection raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for
the respondents as regards maintainability of the Writ Petition.
7) The question of invocation of writ jurisdiction against a private
Company carrying on banking business as a Scheduled bank fell for
3 (2013) 16 SCC 82
4 (2010) 6 SCC 193
5 1978 AIR 1263
6 (2010) 2 SCC 114
7 (2010) 14 SCC 38
8 (1997) 4 SCC 565
9 (2022) 7 SCC 475
-6- PK, J
WP_1828_2023consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Federal Bank
Limited v. Sagar Thomas and others 10, wherein it is held as under:
“For the discussion held above, in our view, a private company
carrying on banking business as a scheduled bank, cannot be
termed as an institution or company carrying on any statutory or
public duty. A private body or a person may be amenable to writ
jurisdiction only where it may become necessary to compel such
body or association to enforce any statutory obligations or such
obligations of public nature casting positive obligation upon it. We
don’t find such conditions are fulfilled in respect of a private
company carrying on a commercial activity of banking. Merely
regulatory provisions to ensure such activity carried on by private
bodies work within a discipline, do not confer any such status upon
the company nor puts any such obligation upon it which may be
enforced through issue of a writ under Article 226 of the
Constitution. Present is a case of disciplinary action being taken
against its employee by the appellant Bank. Respondent’s service
with the bank stands terminated. The action of the Bank was
challenged by the respondent by filing a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The respondent is not trying to
enforce any statutory duty on the part of the Bank. That being the
position, the appeal deserves to be allowed.”
8) Further, while dealing with similar matter, a Full Bench of this
Court in Konaseema Co-operative Central Bank v. N.Seetharama
Raju 11, has held that the appellant therein, which is a Society/Bank,
cannot be characterized as a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12
of the Constitution of India.
10 AIR 2004 SC 3264
11 AIR 1990 AP 171 (FB)
-7- PK, J
WP_1828_2023
9) Having regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Federal Bank Limited case (supra) and the decision of the
Full Bench of this Court in Konaseema Co-operative Central
Bank‘s case (supra), this Court is of the view that the present Writ
Petition is not maintainable. In that view of the matter, this Court is
restrained from adjudicating the writ petition on merits.
10) Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue his remedies before
appropriate Forum, in accordance with law.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________
PULLA KARTHIK, J
Date : 10-01-2025.
sur