Madras High Court
No.4268 Manapparai Agricultural ... vs R.Vijaya on 3 June, 2021
W.A.(MD)No.1059 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
W.A.(MD)No.1059 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.4744 of 2021
No.4268 Manapparai Agricultural Producers
Sales Co-operative Society,
Rep. by its Administrator / Special Officer,
No.44, Kovilpatti Road,
Manapparai, Trichy District. : Appellant
Vs.
1.R.Vijaya
2.The Regional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Trichirappalli Region,
Kajamalai, Trichirappalli – 20.
3.R.Rajaram,
Domestic Enquiry Officer,
No.4268, Manapparai Agricultural Producers
Co-operative Marketing Society,
No.44, Kovilpatti Road,
Manapparai, Trichy District. : Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
praying to set aside the order dated 06.10.2016, in W.P.(MD)No.2338 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/5
W.A.(MD)No.1059 of 2021
2011, and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 and M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012, and allow
the writ appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Sethupathi
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.M.Sankaralingam
for Mr.R.Subramanian
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.A.K.Manickam
Standing Counsel for Government
JUDGMENT
***************
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]
With the consent on either side, this Writ Appeal is taken up for
final disposal.
2.This appeal by the Manapparai Agricultural Producers Sales
Cooperative Society No.4268, Manapparai, Trichy District is directed
against the order dated 06.10.2016, in W.P.(MD)No.2338 of 2011.
3.The said writ petition was filed by the first respondent Vijaya
to quash the order passed by the original Joint Registrar of Cooperative
Societies, Trichy dated 14.09.2010 and for a consequential direction to
reinstate her in the services of the appellant Society with backwages and
attendant benefits. By the impugned order, the learned Writ Court had
allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order passed by the Joint
Registrar of Cooperative Societies and directed the respondent to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1059 of 2021
reinstated, without backwages for the period during which she was under
suspension. The Court also fixed a time frame within which the order
should be complied with. Further more, there was also a direction that
the respondent / writ petitioner is entitled to the continuity of service for
the purpose of pension alone.
4.The appellant society is aggrieved by such order raising
various contentions both legal and factual. More particularly, that the
respondent miserably failed to maintain integrity and honesty and
therefore, the appellant society being an employer has lost confidence in
her. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that charges were
framed against the first respondent / writ petitioner, only after receipt of
the stock verification report from the Cooperative Audit Officer,
Manapparai, for the period from 31.03.2009, indicating stock deficiency
and there is no reason for setting aside the order of dismissal.
5.Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that since the
appellant society did not comply with the order passed in the writ
petition, the respondent has filed CONT.P.(MD)No.1770 of 2017, alleging
willful disobedience of the order and direction issued in the writ petition.
It is further submitted that the appellant society appeared before the
learned Single Bench in the contempt petition and submitted that there is
no vacancy to reinstate the respondent in the appellant society. Taking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1059 of 2021
note of this submission, it appears that the learned Single Bench had Suo
Motu impleaded the appropriate parties of the Government and issued
direction to the effect that the first respondent / writ petitioner should be
appointed in some other society. Pursuant to such direction, learned
Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent has
joined duty in the other society and she is working there.
6.In the light of the subsequent development, the order and
direction issued in the impugned order has worked itself out and there is
no necessity for the appellant society to reinstate the respondent nor give
any continuity of service, since the respondent has already been
appointed in some other society based on certain directions issued in
CONT.P.(MD)No.1770 of 2017 and the respondent has been satisfied with
the direction and she is working there.
7.In the light of the above, the Writ Appeal is allowed to the
extent indicated and accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
[T.S.S., J.] & [S.A.I., J.]
03.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
MR/RR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.(MD)No.1059 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
AND
S.ANANTHI, J.
MR/RR
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized
for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy
of the order that is presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A.(MD)No.1059 of 2021
03.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
