Madras High Court
The Special Officer vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Op. ... on 22 October, 2021
Writ Appeal No.194 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.10.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
Writ Appeal No.194 of 2020
The Special Officer,
ZC.99, Manakkudi Primary Agricultural
Co-operative Credit Society,
Manakkudi Post, Thirukuvalai Taluk,
Nagapattinam District. ... Appellant
vs.
1. The Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies,
Nagapattinam Region,
Nagapattinam.
2. T.Rajendran ... Respondents
(Cause Title accepted vide order dated 07.02.2020 made in C.M.P.No.1377
of 2020 in W.A.SR.No.130369 of 2019)
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 28.08.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.29000 of 2011.
For Appellant : Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy
For 1st Respondent : Mr.K.Tippu Sulthan,
Government Advocate
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.C.Prakasam
Page No.1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.194 of 2020
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court delivered by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.)
The 2nd Respondent in the Writ Petition has come up with this Writ
Appeal, challenging the order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.29000 of 2011.
2. The Writ Petitioner is the 2nd Respondent herein. Before the
learned Single Judge, the Writ Petitioner has challenged the order dated
19.11.2011 passed by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Nagapattinam Region, who confirmed the order of dismissal dated
17.04.2004 passed by the Special Officer of Manakkudi Primary Agricultural
Co-operative Credit Society, Nagapattinam District. Learned Single Judge,
finding that, the order of dismissal passed against the Writ Petitioner is
disproportionate to the proven charges, set aside the same and directed the
Writ Petitioner to pay twice the value of shortage of goods as mentioned in
Charge No.3.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, it was represented by
the learned counsel for the Appellant/Society that, the Writ Petitioner
attained superannuation on 29.02.2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.194 of 2020
4. It is seen that, the 2nd Respondent/Writ Petitioner was appointed
as a Salesman in the Fair Price Shop run by the Appellant/Society in the year
1989. During his service, he was issued with a Charge Memo dated
29.09.2003 that, he committed various misconducts. The Writ Petitioner sent
an explanation dated 01.10.2003 to the said Charge Memo. Not being
satisfied with the same, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, who, after
conducting enquiry, held that, charges have been proved against the Writ
Petitioner. A second Show Cause Notice proposing the penalty of removal
from service was issued to the Writ Petitioner. Thereafter, based on the
Enquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority, vide order dated 17.04.2004,
dismissed the Writ Petitioner from service.
5. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the Writ Petitioner
preferred a Revision before the 1st Respondent herein under Section 153 of
the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, and the same was
dismissed vide order dated 24.05.2004. Aggrieved by the same, the Writ
Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.24460 of 2004 on the
ground that, apart from dealing with the issue of victimization, the Revisional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.194 of 2020
Authority has not passed a speaking order and hence, sought to interfere with
the same. By an order dated 28.07.2011, the learned Single Judge, allowed
the Writ Petition, by setting aside the order of dismissal dated 17.04.2004 and
directed the 1st Respondent therein to decide the Revision Petition afresh
without being influenced by the earlier orders passed by his predecessor.
6. In the said order, the learned Single Judge observed that, the
manner in which the Revision Petition has been disposed of cannot be
appreciated moreso, when the remedy of revision under Section 153 of the
Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, has been statutorily conferred
and it is in the nature of First Appeal and the First Appellate Authority is
bound to record reasons for agreeing with the conclusion of the Disciplinary
Authority though not very elaborately, but is bound to meet all the
contentions and points raised by the delinquent employee.
7. Pursuant thereto, the 1st Respondent/Joint Registrar of Co-
operative Societies, Nagapattinam, by an order dated 19.11.2011, dismissed
the Revision Petition, by holding that, the order of dismissal dated
17.04.2004 passed by the Appellant/Society, is maintainable. Aggrieved by
the said order, the Writ Petitioner, once again approached this Court by filing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.194 of 2020
W.P.No.29000 of 2011 and the order dated 28.08.2019 passed by the learned
Single Judge, allowing the said Writ Petition, is now under challenge.
8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the
material documents available on record.
9. It is seen that, in the Charge Memo dated 29.09.2003, only five
charges have been framed against the 2nd Respondent/Writ Petitioner, though,
enquiry was conducted for six charges. For the sake of convenience, Charges
framed against the Writ Petitioner as could be seen in the said Charge Memo,
are extracted below:
“Charge No.1:
When he was working in Manakudi Shop, on
22.06.2003, the Taluk Supply Officer, Thirukuvali
conducted 100% audit of the cards and irregularities to
the extent of Rs.3373.60 found and double charge was
levied. Till date, this amount not yet been remitted.
Charge No.2:
In shop balancing instrument, he kept 250 gms
magnetic stone and when issuing civil supplies in each
one kilo commodities, 250 gms. less commodities
issued, thereby he committed fraud. In this regard,
general public made a complaint, based on that, the
Tahsildar, District Supply Office Flying Squad came
for enquiry, he misbehaved with them and prevented
in carrying out their duties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.194 of 2020
Charge No.3:
During his period of service on 03.07.2003 in
stock account of the unregulated commodities, he has
made shortage of commodities valued at Rs.3527.85.
Charge No.4:
When he was working in shop, in issuing rice
under Village Self Employment Scheme, he has
written forgery accounts as if S.G.R.Y. Rice was
issued, sold the same in open market and got personal
gain. He received token from the concerned persons
without issuing rice, put forgery signature and
committed offence. In this way, he has written forgery
accounts as if 1659 Kgs. of rice for token Nos.4751 to
4762 and shown lesser stock, sold the same in open
market and got personal gain.
Charge No.5:
He has violated public distribution rules, acted
arbitrarily and committed irregularities in issuing rice
to general public under Government Schemes, thereby,
he created bad name to the Bank and the
Management.”
10. Though, it is the case of the 2nd Respondent/Writ Petitioner that,
the Enquiry Officer did not properly appreciate the charges levelled against
him and the Disciplinary Authority mechanically accepted the Report of the
Enquiry Officer and dismissed him from service, it is the contention of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.194 of 2020
Appellant/Society that, the domestic enquiry was conducted in a fair and
proper manner after giving ample opportunity of hearing to the Writ
Petitioner.
11. In the Grounds of Appeal, the Appellant/Society has questioned
the order of the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that, once charges
are proved based on the evidence, judicial review is not permissible in law.
According to the Appellant/Society, the learned Single Judge cannot act as an
Appellate Authority, conduct a roving enquiry and pass an order upsetting
the dismissal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by
the Appellate Authority.
12. In the case on hand, serious misconducts are said to have been
committed by the Writ Petitioner in the Fair Price Shop. Ultimately, it is the
general public, who are made as victims on account of misconducts
committed by the staff therein. Charge No.2 framed against the Writ
Petitioner states that, he has placed a magnetic stone weighing 250gms in the
balancing instrument, thereby, less quantity of civil supplies commodities
were issued to the general public. The allegation against the Writ Petitioner
on this charge is that, when the Special Tahsildar, District Flying Squad came
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.194 of 2020
for inspection, he misbehaved with them and refused to admit the guilt in
writing. Charge No.2 against the Writ Petitioner reminds us of a similar
incident projected in the visual media, where the comedian sold less quantity
of vegetables by using a magnet in the balancing instrument.
13. Honesty and integrity are expected of every employee,
irrespective of the cadre in which, he/she is working, moreso, in a Fair Price
Shop, where, the beneficiaries of the Civil Supplies commodities, to a larger
extent, are the marginalized section of the Society.
14. The learned Single Judge, after going through the pleadings,
came to the conclusion that even though, there is shortage of goods, the order
of dismissal of the Writ Petitioner is disproportionate to the proven charges
and instead of imposing capital punishment, allowed the Writ Petition with a
direction to the Writ Petitioner to pay twice the value of the shortage of
goods as mentioned in Charge No.3. We are unable to accept the reasoning
given by the learned Single Judge, as it would amount to giving a premium
for the misconduct that has been committed by the Writ Petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.194 of 2020
15. In this regard, it is worth referring to an Apex Court decision in
the case of Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force vs.
Rajendra Kumar Dubey (Civil Appeal No.3820 of 2020, dated
25.11.2020), wherein, with reference to its judgment rendered in the case of
Union of India vs. P.Gunasekaran, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, the Apex
Court has held as under:
"In Union of India Vs. P.Gunasekaran, this Court
held that the High Court in exercise of its power under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India shall
not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The
High Court would determine whether: (a) the enquiry is
held by the competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held
according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf: (c)
there is violation of the principles of natural justice in
conducting the proceedings; (d) the authorities have
disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by
some considerations which are extraneous to the
evidence and merits of the case; (e) the authorities
have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant
or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the
very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that
no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such
conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had
erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material
evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously
admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the
findings; (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
In paragraph 13 of the judgment, the Court held
that:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.194 of 2020
"13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution
of India, the High Court shall not:
(i) re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the
enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in
accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on
which findings can be based;
(vi) correct the error of fact ,however grave it
may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment
unless it shocks its conscience."
16. In this case, charges framed against the Writ Petitioner are
serious in nature and they have been properly established in a duly conducted
enquiry and the said enquiry has not been questioned by the Writ Petitioner.
Unless the Court finds that the punishment imposed is shockingly
disproportionate to the charges, it cannot misuse its extraordinary powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and sit as an Appellate
Authority to interfere with the order of punishment imposed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.194 of 2020
Disciplinary Authority. Hence, we find much force in the contentions of the
learned counsel for the Appellant herein. As charges framed against the Writ
Petitioner are proved in a full-fledged enquiry, we find that, the order of the
learned Single Judge needs to be interfered with. Accordingly, the order
dated 28.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.29000 of
2011 is set aside.
In fine, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently,
connected C.M.P.No.2982 of 2020 is closed.
[S.V.N.,J.] [R.V.,J.]
22.10.2021
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
(aeb/vm)
To:
The Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies,
Nagapattinam Region,
Nagapattinam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Writ Appeal No.194 of 2020
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
(aeb)
Judgment in
W.A.No.194 of 2020
22.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
