Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Aray Sankaraiah vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 July, 2026
Date of reserved for orders : 16.07.2026
Date of pronouncement : 21.07.2026
Date of uploading : 21.07.2026
APHC010226412021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 21st DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 13221 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. ARAY SANKARAIAH, S/o. VENKATAIAH, AGED 59 YEARS,
OCC: STAFF ASSISTANT, KALUVOY PACS, R/o.
MADANNAGARI PALLI, KALUVOY MANDAL, SPSR N NELLORE
DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT'S SECRETARY,
COOPERATIVE DEPT., A. P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE JT REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, AND THE
DISTRICT COOPERATIVE OFFICER, NELLORE, SPSR
NELLORE DISTRICT.
3. THE DY REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, AND THE
DIVISIONAL COOPERATIVE OFFICER, NELLORE.
4. KALUVOY PACS, KALUVOY VILLAGE 85 MANDAL, SPSR
NELLORE DISTRICT REP. BY IT'S CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER.
5. THE PERSON INCHARGE COMMITTEE, REP. BY ITS
PRESIDENT, KALUVOY PACS, KALUVOY VILLAGE 85 MANDAL,
SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S):
2
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in
the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court
may be pleased to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the
nature of a writ of Mandamus under article 226 of the constitution of India
declaring the action of the respondents in placing the petitioner under
suspension pursuant to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his
proceedings Rc. No. 2099/011/C dated 25.7.2012 and not reinstating him
into service as staff assistant in 4th respondent society despite the order
passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Rc. NO. 994/2017/C,
dated 20.3.2021 by invoking the statutory powers conferred under section
59 (3) of AP Cooperative Societies Act 1964 and the orders passed by
the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Rc. No. 1045/2011/C dated
27.10.2016 absolving the petitioner of all the charges leveled against him
as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and without Jurisdiction and also violative of
articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the
respondents to pay the arrears of salary with effect from 16.7.2011 till the
date of his attainment of superannuation i.e. 30-06-2024 with all attendant
benefits and allowances in terms of G.O.Ms.No.151 Agri Cooperation
(Coop-VI) department dated 22-06-2009 and HR Policy as adopted by the
4th respondent society with interest thereon @ 12% per annum and pass
such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper
in the circumstances of the case. Main Prayer amended/substituted as
per Court Order dated 19-11-2025 vide IA No.2 of 2025 in WP No.13221
of 2021.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P SRIDHAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. S NISCHALA REDDY
2. Siva Prasad Reddy
3. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI
4. GP FOR SERVICES II
The Court made the following:
3
ORDER:
This Court allowed the petitioner to amend the main prayer vide
order dated 19.11.2025 in I.A. No 2 of 2025 in WP No. 13221 of
2021. After allowing the amendment the prayer of the writ petitioner is to
issue an order writ or direction more particularly in the nature of a writ of
Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declaring the
action of the respondents in placing the petitioner under suspension
pursuant to the order passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Rc.
No.2099/011/C dated 25.07.2012 and not reinstating the petitioner into
service as staff assistant in 4th respondent society despite the order
passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.994/2017/C dated
20.03.2021 by invoking the statutory powers conferred under Section
59(3) of AP Cooperative Societies Act 1964 and the orders passed by the
3rd respondent in his proceedings Rc.No.1045/2011/C dated 27.10.2016
absolving the petitioner of all the charges leveled against the writ
petitioner amounts to illegal, arbitrary, unjust and without jurisdiction and
also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and
consequently prayed to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of salary
with effect from (w.e.f.)16.07.2011 till the date of his attainment of
superannuation i.e., 30.06.2024 with all attendant benefits and
allowances in terms of G.O.Ms.No.151 Agri & Cooperation (Coop-VI)
department dated 22.06.2009 and HR Policy as adopted by the 4th
4
respondent society with interest thereon @ 12% per annum and pass
such other order or orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper
in the circumstances of the case.
2. The facts that set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ
petition is that petitioner was joined as clerk in 4th respondent-society later
he was promoted as Chief Executive Officer vide resolution dated
27.01.2009 by 4th respondent-society and posted as Staff Assistant with
effect from 15.07.2011.
3. While so the 2nd respondent District Co-operative Officer has
ordered enquiry under Section 51 of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act
1964 (for short herein after referred as Act) the enquiry officer has
submitted his enquiry report vide proceedings in Rc.No.31/2011C dated
16.04.2012 against all the staff members of the society and ordered to
recover Rs.1,24,479/- from the petitioner on the ground that petitioner has
drawn excess salary. The 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated
24.07.2012 based on the enquiry report ordered to initiate disciplinary
proceedings under Section 59(1) of Act. Subsequent to the said
proceedings the president of the 4th respondent-Society placed the
petitioner under suspension vide order dated 13.08.2012. Aggrieved by
the order of suspension, the petitioner herein filed W.P. No. 25512 of
2012 and the said writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to avail
alternative remedy before the Co-operative Society Tribunal.
5
4. Further it is asserted that the petitioner herein filed O.A. under
Section 76 of the Act for ordering to recover an amount of Rs.1, 24,479/-
aggrieved by the order dated 18.05.2013 of the 3rd respondent-Deputy
Registrar Co-operative Society passed under section 60(1) of the Act and
the said O.A., was allowed by remanding the matter for fresh enquiry by
setting aside the surcharge order dated 18.05.2023. After remand, the 3rd
respondent has conducted a detailed enquiry under Section 51 of the Act
and held that 7 charges that were not proved vide proceedings in Rc.No.
1045/2011C dated 27.10.2016. While the enquiry is going on the society
has recovered the excess amount from the salary of the petitioner.
Subsequent to the order of the 3rd respondent dated 27.10.2016 in
discharging the petitioner from the surcharge proceedings, on the
representation dated 06.12.2016, the 5th respondent through proceedings
in Rc.No.68/2011C dated 17.12.2016 directed the President of the society
to reinstate the petitioner to duties, however the petitioner was not
reinstated as per the direction of the 5th respondent.
5. Petitioner herein filed W.P. No. 19400 of 2017 challenging the
proceedings Rc.No. 2099/011C dated 25.07.2012 of the 3rd respondent
before the Common High Court aggrieved in placing the petitioner under
suspension with consequential direction to reinstate with all attendant
benefits, including for payment of arrears in the post of Staff Assistant on
the ground that despite the writ petitioner being absolved or exonerated
6
from the surcharge proceedings vide proceedings in Rc. No.1045/2011C
dated 27.10.2016. This Court has directed the respondent to pay
subsistence allowance vide order dated 07.02.2018 in W.P.M.P. No.
23627 of 2017. Despite the direction, the respondents have not paid the
subsistence allowance, hence the petitioner once again knocked the door
of the High Court under the contempt of Courts Act vide C.C. No.1070 of
2018. Subsequent to the Contempt Case the respondents have paid the
subsistence allowance to the petitioner.
6. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner cannot
be subjected to prolonged suspension. Since the petitioner was absolved
of the surcharge in an enquiry conducted by the Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, and the proceedings in Rc.No.1045/2011C
dated 27.10.2016 have attained finality, the counsel argues that the
petitioner is entitled to retire at the age of 60 pursuant to the amendment
to The AP Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Act,
1984 (Act No.23 of 1984) and the 4th respondent-society has adopted the
said amendment.
7. The respective respondents have filed counter affidavit, their
contentions divulges in the following: The respondent Nos. 1 to 3, filed
counter affidavit and it is asserted that it is true that the petitioner was
placed under suspension pursuant to the orders passed by the 3rd
respondent under Section 59(3) of the Act. But it is not true that the
7
respondents are bound to reinstate the writ petitioner pursuant to the
orders by the 3rd respondent invoking powers under Section 59(1) of the
Act. Challenging the proceeding in RC No.1045/2011/C dated
27.10.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent, 4th respondent-society filed O.A.
No.16 of 2016 and the same was pending for disposal before the A.P.
Cooperative Tribunal on which Sri A. Sankaraiah, writ petitioner herein
assailing. Therefore, the Surcharge Proceedings against the petitioner
even though closed at the level of Deputy Registrar Court still pending
with the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Vijayawada. As the matter stand
thus, considering his request will be subjudice.
8. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed counter affidavit and it is
asserted that the 3rd respondent permitted the 5th respondent to reinstate
the petitioner under Section 59(1) of A.P. Cooperative Societies Act.
Challenging the surcharge proceedings issued vide RC 1045/2011/C
dated 27.10.2016 of the 3rd respondent an O.A. No.14 of 2016 filed by the
Society before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal and the same was pending
for disposal on which petitioner is assailing. Society filed implead petition
seeking impleademnt of the petitioner in I.A. No.63 of 2018, the same is
pending for consideration. Therefore, the surcharge proceedings against
petitioner even though closed before the 3rd Respondent, still pending
before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal and also stated that Writ Petition
filed by petitioner is still pending. It is further stated that direction of the 3rd
8
respondent in absolving the writ petitioner cannot be contrary to the law
and by-laws of the Society, the respondent No.4 herein has to take action
as per the procedure laid down in the service bye-laws of the
Society. And it is further asserted that the Society by-laws were never
amended and enhanced the age of superannuation from 58 years to 60
years due to financial condition of the Society. Further, Rule 28(7) of
Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Rules, 1964 states that the
Cooperative Credit Societies mentioned in Section 115-C & D of the
Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, are exempted from
Rule 28 (6) and may frame such bye-laws/special bye-laws of service
regulations of the Cooperative Credit Societies. Every paid servant and
officer of that Society shall retire from service on attaining such age that is
not in excess of the subsisting rules governing the age of superannuation.
9. It is noticed from the writ affidavit that the petitioner has made a
representation on 01.03.2021 to the respondents 2 to 5 to reinstate the
petitioner to the duties as the prolonged suspension is un-known to law
despite being absolved or exonerated from surcharge charges levelled
under Section 60(1) of the Act in an enquiry conducted under Section 21
of C.C.C.A. Rules against the petitioner vide proceeding dated
27.10.2016 by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society, inspite of
direction giving by the 5th respondent to reinstate the petitioner under
Section 59 (1) of the Act. On the above grounds the present writ petition
9
initially filed to reinstate the petitioner as Staff Assistant in 4th respondent-
society with all attendant benefits including arrears of salary from
16.07.2011 by amending the prayer the petitioner seeks a direction to
direct the respondents.
10. The Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary Vs Union of
India1, deprecated the practice of protracted suspension and repeated
renewal and indicated that a reasoned order must be passed for the
extension of suspension.
The Supreme Court held that :
Suspension, specially preceding the formulation of
charges, is essentially transitory or temporary in nature,
and must perforce be of short duration. If it is for an
indeterminate period or if its renewal is not based on
sound reasoning contemporaneously available on the
record, this would render it punitive in nature.
Departmental/ disciplinary proceedings invariably
commence with delay, are plagued with procrastination
prior and post the drawing up of the Memorandum of
Charges, and eventually culminate after even longer
delay.
Protracted periods of suspension, repeated renewal
thereof, have regrettably become the norm and not the
exception that they ought to be. The suspended person
suffering the ignominy of insinuations, the scorn of
society and the derision of his Department, has to1
(2015) 7 SCC 291
10endure this excruciation even before he is formally
charged with some misdemeanour, indiscretion or
offence. His torment is his knowledge that if and when
charged, it will inexorably take an inordinate time for
the inquisition or inquiry to come to its culmination,
that is to determine his innocence or iniquity. Much too
often this has now become an accompaniment to
retirement.
11. In several or plethora of judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
categorically held that a person involved in a criminal case, particularly in
corruption case, can be placed under suspension till he is exonerated and
he can claim only subsistence allowance. [ See Union of India Vs Rajiv
Kumar reported in 2003 (6) SCC 516. (2) State Bank of India Vs Rattan
Singh reported in 2000 (10) SCC 396]
12. Though the Hon’ble Supreme Court has frowned upon the long
period of suspension in the case Ajay Kumar Choudhary (referred supra
1). In the light of the above judicial pronouncement, in dealing with the
subject of prolonged suspension, court cannot endorsed or direct as a
matter of course for revocation of suspension to the employer to reinstate
the delinquent. It has to be based on the facts of each case and after
noticing the reason for the delay in keeping the employee under
prolonged suspension.
13. On perusal of the material on record the 3rd respondent directed the
society to reinstate the petitioner as Staff Assistant. It is not in dispute
11
that the petitioner was suspended on 13.08.2012 and the surcharge
proceedings initiated under Section 60(1) alongside an enquiry conducted
under Section 51 of the Act vide proceedings in Rc. No.1045/2011C
dated 27.10.2016 resulted the 7 charges that framed were not proved
against the petitioner, furthermore no departmental proceedings were
pending against the petitioner. Mere pendency of O.A. No.14 of 2016
filed by the Society before the A.P. Cooperative Tribunal or an
application for stay did not amount to a stay, does not result in a deemed
or automatic stay of the order of exonerating or absolving from the
surcharge proceedings. That the order under appeal shall not take effect
until the appeal is disposed of.
14. Therefore, it is a fit case that calls for interference on the basis of
the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Kumar
Choudhary Vs Union of India(supra 1)of the above cited decisions.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the suspension order
dated 13.08.2012 is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to
reinstate the petitioner to the post of Staff Assistant. As the petitioner
was superannuated on 30.06.2024, the respondents are hereby directed
to pay the salary with all attendant benefits and allowances which he is
entitled in terms of G.O.Ms.No.151 Agri & Cooperation (Coop-VI)
department dated 22.06.2009 and HR Policy as adopted by the 4th
12
respondent-Society. The respondents can deduct any payment that was
made as per the direction of this Court. However no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ
petition shall stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 21.07.2026
Harin
13
3
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
W.P.No. 13221 of 2021
Date: 21-07-2026
Harin
