Judgment:
N. Kumar, J.
1. The appellants in both these writ appeals are challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge declining to entertain the writ petitions on the ground that the appellants have an alternate and efficacious remedy under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959.
2. Sri A. Madhusudhana Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellants contended that, the appellants have retired about nearly three years back. Admittedly, till today no disciplinary proceedings are initiated. The amount which they are claiming is the amount statutorily payable to them under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and other provisions of the retirement benefits Act. The proceedings referred to in the endorsement is not a proceedings initiated against these appellants. Under these circumstances, he submits there is nothing to be investigated in a writ petition. When admittedly amounts are due to the appellants and it is not paid, the appellants were justified in approaching this Court for a writ of mandamus. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was in error in declining to entertain the writ petitions.
3. From the material on record in W.A. No. 2062 of 2009 it is clear that, proceedings have been initiated under Section 64 of the Act. In the said proceedings the authorities want to find out who are all the persons on whom the liability could be fastened. It is in that contest they have issued an endorsement that till the enquiry is over and liability is fixed, it is not possible for them to make any payment towards the amount claimed by the appellant. The proceedings were initiated much prior to the appellant retiring. Appellant was permitted to retire subject to the aforesaid condition, namely subject to the proceedings initiated under Section 64. The question whether the appellant is involved in any misfeasance for which proceedings are already initiated, whether the monies which are legitimately due to the appellant could be withheld in the manner it is done, are all matters which can be gone into after recording of evidence. It is in that context, the learned Single Judge held when alternate remedy is available under the Act, it is not proper to entertain the writ petition. We do not see any error committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order.
4. The appellant in W.A. No. 2063 of 2009 is one Chandrashekar. He has retired from service with effect from 30-6-2007. Before his retirement a show-cause notice had been issued to him calling upon him to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him for misappropriation of the funds of the Bank and in respect of other misconduct alleged. Appellant gave a reply denying all the allegations. Therefore, his retirement benefits were not settled. To that effect an endorsement is issued. Challenging the correctness of the said endorsement the appellant preferred the writ petition. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant has an alternate and efficacious remedy by way of Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. In fact the Bank has made it very clear that once he is exonerated of the charges levelled against him, depending on the same the retirement benefits would be settled. In these circumstances, we do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Accordingly, both the writ appeals are dismissed.