ORDER The petitioner is employed as Credit-cum-Procurement Assistant, in the Girijan Cooperative Corporation Limited, the 1st respondent herein. A show-cause notice dated 6.9.2005 was issued to him, alleging that he was responsible in procuring adulterated honey, on account of which, the Corporation sustained loss of Rs. 48,300/-. The petitioner was directed to explain as to why disciplinary action shall not be taken against him, apart from recovering the amount, mentioned above. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Not being satisfied with that, the 1st respondent passed an order, dated 4.2.2006, directing recovery of a sum of Rs.48,300/- from the salary of the petitioner, in 24 monthly instalments. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner contends that whatever may have been the justification for the respondents, in initiating disciplinary proceedings, they ought to have followed the procedure prescribed under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act (for short "the Act"), and the Rules made thereunder, insofar as the recovery is concerned. 3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, opposing the writ petition. An objection is raised, as to the maintainability of the writ petition, on the ground that there is an effective alternative remedy. 4. Sri S. Sudeep Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were disciplinary in nature, in the ultimate analysis, the direction is for recovery of amount, and the same ought to have been done, in accordance with Section 60 or 61 of the Act. He contends that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 5. Sri G. Vivekanand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that once the recovery of amount was directed, as part of the disciplinary proceedings, the question of requiring the respondents to follow the procedure under Sections 60 and 61 of the Act, does not arise. He contends that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy of appeal under Rule 8 of the Service Rules framed by the 1st respondent. 6. The 1st respondent was registered under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, with hundred percent participation of the State Government. It undertakes various activities for the benefit of the tribals in the State. One of the activities is procurement of honey from tribals. The petitioner was entrusted with the duty of procuring the honey. 7. 6. The 1st respondent was registered under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, with hundred percent participation of the State Government. It undertakes various activities for the benefit of the tribals in the State. One of the activities is procurement of honey from tribals. The petitioner was entrusted with the duty of procuring the honey. 7. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, alleging that he was instrumental in procuring adulterated honey, and thereby, a loss of Rs.48,300/- was caused to the Corporation. Apart from indicating that necessary disciplinary proceedings would be taken against him, it was also directed that he would be liable to repay the said amount. The explanation offered by the petitioner did not weigh with the respondents, and ultimately, the impugned order came to be passed. 8. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is about the applicability of the provisions of the Act, vis-a-vis the action taken against the petitioner. Notwithstanding the fact that the 1st respondent is a society, a clear division is to be maintained, as to its action against the employees, under the relevant service regulations, on the one hand, and business activities, on the other hand. In the latter category of cases, some times, the proceedings may have to be initiated against the employees also. By their very nature, the disciplinary proceedings are governed by the Service Rules and Regulations, wherever they are framed. It is not uncommon that apart from proposing punishment provided for under the Rules, the employer may initiate steps for recovery of the resultant loss or damage, caused by the employee. 9. The necessity to invoke Section 61 of the Act would arise, only where the recovery is sought to be affected, in the context of pure and simple business. The total exclusion of disciplinary proceedings from the purview of Section 61, is not without any reason. Once disciplinary proceedings are initiated against an employee, the mere fact that there is an element of recovery, cannot bring the proceedings, within the purview of Section 61. There is a reference to the employees is also under Section 61, in the context of otherwise than in disciplinary proceedings. 10. The argument that Section 60 of the Act must be followed in the instant case, is unacceptable. There is a reference to the employees is also under Section 61, in the context of otherwise than in disciplinary proceedings. 10. The argument that Section 60 of the Act must be followed in the instant case, is unacceptable. That provision can be invoked, only as a sequel to the inspection, audit or enquiry, or liquidation, under the relevant provisions of the Act. None of the instances referred to above have occurred, in this case. Therefore, the question of invoking Section 60 of the Act, does not arise. 11. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner had advanced arguments, touching on the merits, this court is not inclined to appreciate the same, at this stage. The reason is that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy, by way of appeal, under Rule 8 of Service Rules of the 1st respondent. The appeal was required to be presented within 30 days. Inasmuch as the petitioner had approached this court, the period of limitation expired. 12. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal, under Rule 8 of the Service Rules of 1st respondent. It is directed that in case the appeal is presented, within two weeks from today, it shall be entertained, without raising any objection as to limitation. There shall be no order as to costs.