IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY THIS THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.27084 of 1999 Between:
Karimnagar Cooperative Urban Bank Limited, Karimnagar, rep.by its President B.Rajesham . PETITIONER And The Authorities under Sec.48, A.P.S.E.Act and Asst.Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar and another . RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.27084 of 1999
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. None appeared for the 2nd respondent.
The 2nd respondent was working as Clerk in the petitioner Bank. An enquiry was held against him under Section 51 of the A.P.Cooperative Societies Act and it was found in the enquiry that he misappropriated the funds to the tune of Rs.1,83,500/-. Surcharge proceedings dated 23.11.1998 were issued against the petitioner to pay the said amount. In the meanwhile, a departmental enquiry was held against him and the petitioner was removed from service pursuant to the said enquiry. Challenging the termination order, the petitioner filed A.P.S.E.Case No.1/1998 before the authority under Section 48 of the A.P.Shops and Establishment Act and the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar. In the said proceedings, he wanted to file the surcharge order as a piece of evidence on his behalf. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour dismissed the said application on the ground that it is not necessary for disposal of the case before him. The said order is challenged in the present writ petition.
Obviously, the termination order seems to have been passed basing on the surcharge proceedings issued against the petitioner alleging that he misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,83,500/- and he has to pay the amount to the bank. Therefore, it cannot be said that the surcharge order is totally irrelevant to the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. The order passed by the authority therefore is not in accordance with law since this Court is of the opinion that the surcharge order is an important piece of evidence in the case before the authority. The impugned order dated 02.12.1999 is therefore set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 29.10.2014 Dsr