Madras High Court
P.Balasubramaniyan vs The Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 2 March, 2021
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A(MD)NOs.1408 and 1409 OF 2017
P.Balasubramaniyan :Appellant/Petitioner in both
Writ Appeals
.vs.
1.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Dindigul District.
3.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Palani. : Respondents/Respondents in
both Writ Appeals.
PRAYER: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
praying this Court to set aside the orders passed by this Court in
W.P(MD)Nos.6607 of 2009 and W.P(MD)No.1021 of 2011, both
dated 31.07.2007.
For Appellant :Mr.R.Suriyanarayanan
in both W.As'
For Respondents :Mr.M.Murugan
in both W.As' Govt.Advocate
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
COMMON JUDGMENT
***********************
[Judgment of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.]
These Writ Appeals are filed challenging the common order
passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.6607 of 2009 and W.P(MD)No.
1021 of 2011, dated 31.07.2007.
2.The Writ Petitioner, who is the appellant herein, was
appointed as Special Officer in Manjanaickenpatti, Poduvarpatti
and Devathur Primary Agricultural Society on 27.12.1985 for a
limited period of six months, which had been periodically
extended. Whileso, the third respondent terminated the service of
the appellant on 17.2.1988 vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.1528/88
PT. On 26.9.1988, the appellant sent a petition to the first
respondent to consider his representation and set to aside the
order of termination passed by the third respondent.The same was
forwarded to the second respondent and on 15.12.1988, the second
respondent passed an order stating that there was an allegation of
misappropriation against the Writ Appellant and his request for
revocation was rejected under Section 65 of the 'Act'. Therefore,
the request of the appellant to set aside the order of termination
cannot be considered. The said order refusing to set aside the
termination order is challenged by the appellant in W.P.No.6607 of
http://www.judis.nic.in
3
2009. It is the further case of the appellant that a criminal case in
C.C.No.46 of 1989, on the file of Judicial Magistrate NO.III,
Madurai, ended in his favour and he was acquitted honourably on
30.12.2009. Thereafter, the appellant had sent a representation on
19.01.2009 along with a copy of the order made in C.C.No.46 of
1989 to the respondents. But the respondents did not consider the
representation and hence, the appellant had filed W.P.NO.1228 of
2010 seeking a direction for the disposal of the said representation
from this Court. Pursuant to the same, the respondents had passed
an order on 29.10.2010 stating that the Writ Appellant had been
appointed under Section 10(a)(i) for a limited period and he had
been removed from service under Section 10(a)(v) and not required
to assign any reason. Aggrieved by the said order, dated
29.10.2010, the appellant had filed W.P.No.1021 of 2011. The said
Writ Petitions were heard together by the learned Single Judge and
by order, dated 31.7.2017, the said Writ Petitions were dismissed
and agrrieved over the same, the above Writ Appeals are filed.
3.It is to be noted that when the Writ Petitioner was
appointed as a Special Officer in the temporary post under Rule
10(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subodinate Service Rules,it is
open to them to terminate the service of the Writ Petitioner, as per
Rule10(a)(v) of the above said Rules. It is found that even before
http://www.judis.nic.in
4
such appointment, he served as Secretary and misappropirated the
funds of the Society, for which, a criminal case was lodged and
surcharge proceedings were initiated. It is also stated that on the
date when the termination order was served, no surcharge
proceedings was initiated. The only reason assigned by the learned
counsel for the appellant is that he has been acquitted honourably
in the criminal case, which was the reason for refusing to set aside
the termination order. The appellant has challenged the order
dated 17.2.1988 only after ten years, though the subsequent order
dated 29.10.2010 was challenged immediately.The learned Single
Judge had considered in detail about the rights and reliefs available
to the appellant under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India
and dismissed the Writ Petitions. Admittedly, when the appointment
itself is only contractual and since the termination is based on the
negligence of the employee, he cannot seek for protection from the
Court. The Writ Petitions were dismissed only on the grounds of
delay and laches. Now the Writ Appellant is seeking reinstatement
into service after a period of thirty years. Admittedly, the appellant
is retired from service and no purpose would be served if the
appellant is reinstated into service and it is only for claiming wages
without doing any work.
4.In such circumstances, we do not propose to interfere with
http://www.judis.nic.in
5
the order of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the Writ
Appeals stand dismissed. No costs.
[P.S.N.,J.] & [S.K.,J.]
02.03.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vsn
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.
To
1.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Chennai.
2.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Dindigul District.
3.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Palani.
http://www.judis.nic.in
6
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA J.
AND
S.KANNAMMAL, J.
vsn
COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)NOs.1408 and
1409 OF 2017
02.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
