WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT MARKETING SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. KOMMANA RAMESH CHANDRA CHOWDRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The West Godavari District Marketing Society Limited, Eluru (the Society) is a body registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, VII of 1964 (the Act). The respondent Kommana Rameshchandra Choudary was an employee of the Society. He was appointed on 21st December, 1962 as Lower Division Clerk and on 25th July, 1963 was promoted to be the Manager of Sri Satyanarayana Rice Mill, Tadepalligudem. On 31st October, 1966, he was entrusted the management of the Modern Rice Mill at Tadepalligudem "with duties" enumerated "on 21st November, 1966". The respondent took charge on 23rd December, 1966. Eight months later when the mill was inspected (The Modem Rice Mill) on 3rd August, 1967. the Registrar found 430 quintals and Kgs. of paddy the value being Rs. 42,382-44 as on 31st May, 1967 was deficit and further 203 quintals of paddy as respects "B.T. paddy" were found purchased at excess rate of Rs. 6 per quintal. In the proceedings of the Society on 7th August, 1967 the deficits were "confirmed". The West Godavari District Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited, Eluru on llth August, 1967, thereupon ordered suspension of the respondent. The business Manager thereafter made the necessary order in Exhibit B-17 on 14th August, 1967 for there was no elected body during the relevant period. On the same day the respondent was put under suspension for three months under clause (c) of bye daw No. 13 of the Society and was ordered to be paid one-fourth of substantive pay as subsisting allowance. The "suspension" thereafter on 11th November, 1967 in Exhibit A-3 and on after 15th February, 1968 in Exhibit A-4 was further extended. On 19th August, 1967, by order in Exhibit B-18 a general enquiry under section 51 of the Act in the affairs of the mill was ordered. The inquiry revealed the respondent was incharge of the Modern Rice Mill between 23rd December, 1960 and 10th July, 1967 and then he handed over charge to his successor Balakrishnan. On 12th August, 1967, on his suspension from duty and between the two dates the irregularities have had occurred.

(2.) The respondent assailed the orders of "suspension" ordered by the Society on 18th November, 1967; 15th February, 1968 and 4th June, 1968 and other cognate proceedings in Exhibit B-17 in two Writ Petitions Nos. 422 and 423 of 1968. This Court dismissed the two writ petitions on 18th April, 1969 (Exhibit A-6). Later on 26th February, 1968 under Exhibit B-2 the respondent sought reinstatement and reiterated the request on 29th November, 1967 and complained thereafter the order of suspension ever since 14th August, 1967, no enquiry was conducted by the Society under the relevant bye-laws of the society. The respondent fifteen months later lodged the instant suit on 1st July, 1970 and averred that the Society did not frame charges ; conducted no inquiry against him and in the circumstances he was impelled to believe that he is no more under the employment of the Society and claimed Rs. 10,571-50 either as damages or towards salary, bonus, gratuity and allowances for the period from 15th August, 1967 to 30th Tune, 1970 and claimed further the return of Rs. 1,000 as money due to him - the security money tendered by him whilst he managed Sri Satyanarayana Rice Mill.

(3.) The Society in answer disputed the claims of the respondent and stated till the decision in Writ Petitions Nos. 422 and 423 of 1968 on 18th April. 1967 (the date in Exhibit A-6 the order of this Court), the subject was sub- iudice in this Court and later when in proceedings, dated 5th August, 1968, Exhibit B-20 charges were framed. The respondent was asked to submit explanation. The respondent endorsed on 13th August. 1967 "refused" and did not receive Exhibit B-20 notice. Thus the respondent by his unilateral conduct left their service and is not entitled to damages or salary or emoluments of Rs. 10,571-50. The employer inter alia raised two other contentions which are now given up in appeal: (a) on pertaining to the provisions in payment of Wages Act IV of 1954 ; and (b) the other relating to Shops and Establishment Act of 1966. The suit, it was further averred was not maintainable in the absence of notice to the Society under section 126 of the Act VII of 1964. In addition the Society urged the respondent was employed under Sri Krishna Balaji Talkies on a salary of Rs. 140 per month was employed under one Mayabi for three months in January, February and March, 1970 and later secured employment in Krishna Rice Mill on a salary of Rs. 250 per month.