Madras High Court
M.Jagadheesan vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 11 January, 2021
W.P.No.512 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 11.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.512 of 2021
and
W.M.P.Nos.576 & 578 of 2021
(Heard through VC)
M.Jagadheesan .. Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Namakkal Region,
Namakkal.
2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Namakkal Circle,
District Collector Office Complex,
Namakkal.
3.The President,
S.1286, R.Pudupalayam Primary Agricultural
Credity Co-operative Society,
R.Pudupalayam,
Namakkal District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue
a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relates to the
impugned order of suspension dated 07.11.2020 passed by the third
respondent and quash the same as illegal, unauthority of law and
consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into
service with all back wages and other benefits including promotion.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.512 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.Raja
For Respondents : Mr.R.Balaramesh
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned
order of suspension dated 07.11.2020 passed by the third respondent
and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into
service with all back wages and other benefits including promotion.
2. Mr.R.Balaramesh, learned Special Government Pleader
takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of both parties,
the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage
itself.
3. According to the petitioner, he was placed under
suspension pursuant to the order dated 07.11.2020 and in the said
order, there was no mention about the payment of subsistence
allowance. A reading of the provisions of the Subsistence Allowance
Act, 1981 makes it very clear that the order of suspension should
contain the modality of payment of subsistence allowance. However, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.512 of 2021
the present case, the subsistence allowance is said to be paid to the
employee, within the stipulated time under the said Act.
4. It is represented by Mr.Balaramesh, learned Special
Government Pleader that the charge memo has already been issued.
5. It is needless to mention that in case the Subsistence
Allowance is not paid, the petitioner will have a better case, as the
entire enquiry would be a futile exercise, as non-payment of
subsistence allowance would vitiate the enquiry. Hence, this Court,
while declining to interfere with the order passed by the authority,
more particularly, the writ petition is not maintainable, as the relief is
sought against the Co-operative Society, directs the respondents to
proceed with the enquiry on a day to-day basis without adjourning the
matter beyond seven working days at any point of time. In case the
respondent wants to consider the case of the petitioner for
reinstatement, the principle laid in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union
of India through its Secretary and another, reported in 2015 (3)
CTC 119 and State of TN vs. Promod Kumar IPS and another,
reported in AIR 2018 SC 4060 shall be taken note of. In similar
circumstances, this Court has elaborately dealt with the issue in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.512 of 2021
W.P.No.13 of 2021 (V.Mohanraj vs. The Secretary and two
others), and passed a detailed order on 06.01.2021. For the sake of
convenience, the relevant Paragraph Nos.6 to 10 are extracted
hereunder:
"6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,
this Court is not going to direct the respondents to promote
the petitioner to the post of Inspector by including him in the
panel and it is for the respondents to consider the same. It is
needless to mention that if any departmental proceedings have
been commenced or initiated, it is open to the respondents to
proceed with the same so as to bring the proceedings to a
logical end, dehors pendency of the criminal case, as both
criminal proceedings as well as departmental proceedings can
go on simultaneously and the criminal case should be proved
beyond reasonable doubt by adducing oral and documentary
evidence, whereas charges in the departmental proceedings
should be established on the basis of preponderance of
probabilities. If Criminal Proceedings are not initiated or
concluded within one year from the date of FIR, there is no
hindrance on the part of the employer to proceed with the
departmental proceedings on day to-day basis and bring the
issue to a logical end at the earliest point of time and the
employee will have to participate in the departmental
proceedings and shall not attempt to adopt dilatory tactics.
7. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Stanzen Toyotetsu India Private Limited vs. Girish v.
and others, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 636, has clearly laid
down a dictum as under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.512 of 2021
“19. In the circumstances and taking into
consideration all aspects mentioned above as also
keeping in view the fact that all the three Courts
below have exercised their discretion in favour of
staying the on-going disciplinary proceedings, we do
not consider it fit to vacate the said order
straightaway. Interests of justice would, in our
opinion, be sufficiently served if we direct the Court
dealing with the criminal charges against the
respondents to conclude the proceedings as
expeditiously as possible but in any case within a
period of one year from the date of this order. We
hope and trust that the Trial Court will take
effective steps to ensure that the witnesses are
served, appear and are examined. The Court may
for that purpose adjourn the case for no more than
a fortnight every time an adjournment is necessary.
We also expect the accused in the criminal case to
co-operate with the trial Court for an early
completion of the proceedings. We say so because
experience has shown that trials often linger on for
a long time on account of non- availability of the
defense lawyers to cross-examine the witnesses or
on account of adjournments sought by them on the
flimsiest of the grounds. All that needs to be
avoided. In case, however, the trial is not
completed within the period of one year from the
date of this order, despite the steps which the Trial
Court has been directed to take the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against the respondents shall
be resumed and concluded by the Inquiry Officer
concerned. The impugned orders shall in that case
stand vacated upon expiry of the period of one year
from the date of the order.
20. In the result, we allow these appeals but
only in part and to the extent indicated above. The
parties are left to bear their own costs.”
8. For the purpose of brevity, this Court makes it very
clear that if any criminal proceedings have been initiated after
commencement of the departmental proceedings, the one
year time limit mentioned supra will not apply to those cases
and the departmental proceedings shall go on uninterruptedly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.512 of 2021
Invariably, the offenders, who have committed grave offences,
are being acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt, owing
to missing link in the chain of events and are trying to get
back the entire backwages and for those persons, employment
itself is a lottery.
9. In the present case on hand, even according to the
petitioner, a charge memo has been issued as early as on
18.12.2015 and in case any departmental proceedings had
already commenced, the same shall be proceeded on a day
to-day basis without adjourning the matter beyond seven
working days at any point of time and brought to a logical
conclusion at the earliest. The petitioner shall co-operate for
early attainment of the proceedings.
10. With the above observation, this writ petition is
disposed of. No costs."
6. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed and the
respondents shall take a decision in the light of the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgment of this Court dated
06.01.2020 (especially Paragraph No.6). Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
11.01.2021
Index : Yes/no
Speaking order : Yes/No
rsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.512 of 2021
To
1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Namakkal Region,
Namakkal.
2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Namakkal Circle,
District Collector Office Complex,
Namakkal.
3.The President,
S.1286, R.Pudupalayam Primary Agricultural
Credity Co-operative Society,
R.Pudupalayam,
Namakkal District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.No.512 of 2021
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
rsi
W.P.No.512 of 2021
and
W.M.P.Nos.576 & 578 of 2021
11.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
