Madras High Court
K.Kumar vs The Joint Registrar Of on 3 February, 2021
W.P.No.1976 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.1976 of 2021
K.Kumar ... Petitioner
vs.
1. The Joint Registrar of
Co-operative Societies,
Cuddalore Region,
Cuddalore District.
2. The President,
E-2189, Vadapuram Keezhpathi,
Primary Agriculture Co-operatives
Credit Society,
Singirekudi Post,
Cuddalore Taluk,
Cuddalore District – 605 007. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records relating to the
order of termination dated 15.05.2017 passed by the 2nd Respondent in his
proceedings vide Na.Ka.No.01/2016, which was confirmed by the 1st
Respondent in his proceedings dated 02.03.2018 in Na.Ka.No.4317/2017
Thu.Va.tha-1, quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to
reinstate the Petitioner in service with continuity of service, backwages,
attendant benefits and other statutory service benefits.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1976 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Vinoth Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.L.P.Shanmuga Sundaram,
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
Petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition challenging the order of
termination dated 15.05.2017 passed by the 2nd Respondent under Section
153 of the Co-operative Societies Act, which was confirmed by the 1st
Respondent vide proceedings dated 02.03.2018, and for a consequential
direction to the Respondents to reinstate him in service with continuity of
service, backwages, attendant benefits and other statutory service benefits.
2. According to the Petitioner, he joined the services of the
Respondent/Society in the year 1986 as a Clerk and subsequently promoted
as Secretary of the Society in the year 2011. He was placed under
suspension on 22.09.2016 for dereliction of duty and a Charge Memo dated
17.12.2016 was issued to the Petitioner, levelling eight charges against him
on the ground that, he has not discharged his work with responsibility,
sanctioned loan to the members in excess and thereby, caused loss to the
Society. As the explanation dated 27.12.2016 submitted by the Petitioner
was not satisfactory, an enquiry was conducted and charges against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1976 of 2021
Petitioner were found to be proved. The 2nd Respondent/Disciplinary
Authority, without even affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner,
imposed the punishment of removal from service vide order dated
15.05.2017.
3. Challenging the order of termination, the Petitioner filed a
Revision Petition before the 1st Respondent on 01.08.2017 and also
submitted a detailed statement on 15.11.2017. Since the said Revision
Petition was not considered, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition in
W.P.No.24007 of 2017 and this Court, by an order dated 06.09.2017,
directed the 1st Respondent therein to consider the Revision Petition filed by
the Petitioner and pass orders within a period of four weeks. Pursuant
thereto, the 1st Respondent/Revisional Authority confirmed the order of
termination on 02.03.2018.
4. Two grounds have been raised by the Petitioner. Firstly, the
loan sanctioned to members have already been recovered and there is no loss
to the Society. The other ground taken by the Petitioner is that, even
assuming that the charges are proved, the punishment imposed on him is
disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and that, his past records
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1976 of 2021
have not been taken into account before imposing capital punishment.
5. Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram, learned Special Government
Pleader, who took notice for the Respondents submitted that, when the doors
are not wide to sanction loan over and above what has been prescribed,
moreso without the consent of the superior Authorities, the Petitioner has
committed a grave misconduct which has been proved in the domestic
enquiry and only after giving due opportunity of hearing, he was terminated
from service.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
material documents available on record.
7. Facts of the case are not in dispute. Grounds raised by the
Petitioner cannot be accepted, as the Petitioner being the Secretary of the
Respondent/Society, ought to have been vigilant and he should not have
sanctioned loan beyond the prescribed limit.
8. The Apex Court, in the case of Disciplinary Authority-cum-
Regional Manager vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik reported in 1996 (9) SCC
69 has held that, even assuming that, the amount has been recovered, the fact
that, it has been sticky for some time, itself is a sufficient ground not to show
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1976 of 2021
any indulgence, moreso, when the employee does not belong to “workmen”
category. For better appreciation, relevant portion of the said judgment is
extracted hereunder:
“7. It may be mentioned that in the
memorandum of charges, the aforesaid two
regulations are said to have been violated by the
respondent. Regulation 3 requires every
officer/employee of the bank to take all possible
steps to protect the interests of the bank and to
discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty,
devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is
unbecoming of a bank officer. It requires the
officer/employee to maintain good conduct
and discipline and to act to the best of his judgment
in performance of his official duties or in exercise
of the powers conferred upon him. Breach of
Regulation 3 is ‘misconduct’ within the meaning of
Regulation 24. The findings of the Inquiry Officer
which have been accepted by the disciplinary
authority, and which have not been disturbed by the
High Court, clearly show that in a number of instances
the respondent allowed overdrafts or passed cheques
involving substantial amounts beyond his authority.
True, it is that in some cases, no loss has resulted
from such acts. It is also true that in some other
instances such acts have yielded profit to the Bank
but it is equally true that in some other instances,
the funds of the Bank have been placed in
jeopardy; the advances have become sticky and
irrecoverable. It is not a single act; it is a course of
action spreading over a sufficiently long period and
involving a large number of transactions. In the
case of a bank — for that matter, in the case of any
other organisation — every officer/employee is
supposed to act within the limits of his authority. If
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1976 of 2021
each officer/employee is allowed to act beyond his
authority, the discipline of the organisation/bank will
disappear; the functioning of the bank would become
chaotic and unmanageable. Each officer of the bank
cannot be allowed to carve out his own little empire
wherein he dispenses favours and largesse. No
organisation, more particularly, a bank can function
properly and effectively if its officers and employees
do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline.
Such indiscipline cannot be condoned on the specious
ground that it was not actuated by ulterior motives or
by extraneous considerations. The very act of acting
beyond authority — that too a course of conduct
spread over a sufficiently long period and involving
innumerable instances — is by itself a misconduct.
Such acts, if permitted, may bring in profit in some
cases but they may also lead to huge losses. Such
adventures are not given to the employees of banks
which deal with public funds. If what we hear about
the reasons for the collapse of Barings Bank is true, it
is attributable to the acts of one of its employees, Nick
Leeson, a minor officer stationed at Singapore, who
was allowed by his superiors to act far beyond his
authority. As mentioned hereinbefore, the very
discipline of an organisation and more particularly, a
bank is dependent upon each of its employees and
officers acting and operating within their allotted
sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a
breach of discipline and a breach of Regulation 3.
It constitutes misconduct within the meaning of
Regulation 24. No further proof of loss is really
necessary though as a matter of fact, in this case
there are findings that several advances and
overdrawals allowed by the respondent beyond his
authority have become sticky and irrecoverable.
...”
9. In the case on hand, the Petitioner, being the Secretary of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1976 of 2021
Respondent/Society ought to have been more vigilant. Hence, the first
ground raised by the Petitioner is rejected.
10. As regards the other ground raised by the Petitioner that, the
punishment imposed on him is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges
and that, his past records have not been considered, this Court is of the view
that, there is no need to consider his past records, as, the Petitioner, being the
Secretary of the Respondent/Society, cannot act beyond authority, as, acting
beyond authority is by itself a misconduct. Hence, the punishment imposed
on him cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges. Thus, the
second ground raised by the Petitioner is also rejected.
11. In view of the foregoing, this Court does not find any error in
the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, which has been confirmed by
the Revisional Authority. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed
as devoid of merits. No costs.
03.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
(aeb)
To:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1976 of 2021
1. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Cuddalore Region, Cuddalore District.
2. The President,
E-2189, Vadapuram Keezhpathi,
Primary Agriculture Co-operatives Credit Society,
Singirekudi Post, Cuddalore Taluk,
Cuddalore District – 605 007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.1976 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
(aeb)
W.P.No.1976 of 2021
03.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
