L. Narasimha Reddy, J.:— The petitioner in W.P No. 4238 of 2003 filed this writ appeal, feeling aggrieved by the dismissal thereof by the learned Single Judge through order, dated 18.07.2005
2. The appellant was working as Supervisor in the Krishna District Co-operative Central Bank Limited, the respondent Bank, in the year 2002. While according to him, he was required to supervise 17 Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies within the purview of the respondent Bank. An enquiry under Section 51 of the A.P Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 was conducted into the affairs of the Nidamanuru Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society (for short ‘the Society’), which is within the jurisdiction of the 3 respondent. Large-scale misappropriation of the funds of the Society was noticed and the responsibility there for was fixed upon the Ex-President, Secretary and Clerk of the Society. However, an observation was made to the effect that there was sluggishness in the supervision of the society on the part of the appellant. Taking the same into account, the 3 respondent issued charge memo, dated 08.03.2002, framing one charge with two allegations. The appellant states that he submitted explanation thereto on 08.04.2002 Domestic enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report, dated 20.08.2002, holding that the charge is proved. Taking the same into account, the 3 respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 06.09.2002, proposing the punishment of dismissal from service. The appellant submitted explanation. Not satisfied with the same, the 3 respondent passed the order, dated 05.10.2002, dismissing the appellant from service. Departmental appeal preferred by the appellant was rejected on 27.12.2002 and the 3 respondent communicated the same to the appellant, through memo dated 22.01.2003 Hence, the appellant filed the present writ petition challenging the same.
3. The contention of the appellant was that the charge framed against him is without any basis and that there was not even an allegation that he has directly or indirectly misappropriated any amount. He contends that in the course of enquiry, he has furnished the particulars of his visit to the Society and that misappropriation has taken place on account of the collusion within the administration of the Society i.e, Ex-President, Secretary and Clerk of the Society. He further pleaded that the punishment against him is totally disproportionate and the same cannot be sustained in law. The respondents filed counter affidavit, opposing the writ petition. They pleaded that had the appellant been vigilant enough, the misappropriation in the Society could have been averted. It was also pleaded that though the appellant received charge memo, he did not submit his explanation and the domestic enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with law.
4. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on finding that there is no error in the order of punishment passed against the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents advanced extensive arguments on the same lines which they have addressed before the learned Single Judge.
6. The charge framed against the appellant reads as under:
“That Sri. K. Hanumantha Rao had derelicted his duties as Supervisor of the Nidamanuru PACS and also abetted the persons involved in misappropriation of the funds of the society to the extent of Rs. 46,87,950-10 for his personal benefit and thereby acted in a manner unbecoming of an employee of the Bank derogatory to the code of conduct and committed grave misconduct.”
7. While the appellant stated that he has submitted explanation on 08.04.2002, there was some controversy about it. All the same, he participated in the domestic enquiry and put forward his contention by making reference to the explanation. During the course of enquiry, he has furnished the details of the visit made by him to the Society. Between February to June, 2001, he made about 30 to 40 visits. He further pleaded that as many as 17 Societies were under his supervision and, in spite of his best efforts, the Ex-President, Secretary and Clerk of the Society colluded and misappropriated the funds.
8. Even from the charge, it is evident that there was not even an allegation of misappropriation and collusion against the appellant. If the accusation is of lack of proper supervision, the same thing holds good against the top administration of the 2 respondent also. The responsibility of checking or supervision does not stop with the appellant. There is a separate auditing wing not only in the 2 respondent, but also in the Department of Co-operation. Therefore, the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service was totally untenable. Even if the charge is held proved, that could not have entailed of such a serious punishment. Apart from being arbitrary, it is disproportionate to the acts alleged and proved. We are of the view that the lapses, if any, on the part of the appellant can be met by imposing the punishment of withholding of two increments. Coming to the backwages, the record is not clear as to whether the appellant was gainfully employed elsewhere over the period.
9. Hence, we allow the writ appeal and set aside the order under appeal. Consequently, we allow the writ petition and set aside the dismissal order dated 05.10.2002 The appellant shall be reinstated into service with attendant benefits and continuity of service, but with backwages of 50%. The punishment of stoppage of two increments shall stand imposed against him for a period of three years. There shall be no order as to costs.
10. Miscellaneous petitions pending in this writ appeal shall also stand disposed of.