Madras High Court
The Managing Director vs R.Thamizhvanan on 24 August, 2022
W.A.No.1757 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
W.A.No.1757 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.12793 of 2022
The Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu Co-operative Marketing
Federation Limited (TANFED),
No.91, St. Mary's Road,
Chennai – 600 018 ..Appellant
Vs
1.R.Thamizhvanan
2.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Salem Region,
Salem District.
3.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Salem Circle,
Salem District.
4.The Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu Co-operative Marketing
Federation Limited (TANFED),
Salem. ..Respondents
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1757 of 2022
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the
order dated 05.01.2022 made in W.P.No.30263 of 2016.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Neelakandan
Additional Advocate General
assisted by
Mr.P.Selvendran
For Respondent : Mr.R.Jayaprakash
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by Paresh Upadhyay.,J)
1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated
05.01.2022 recorded on W.P.No.30263 of 2016. This appeal is by
the third respondent in the writ petition (the employer).
2. Learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant
has submitted that, the action of the employer of withholding
terminal dues of the writ petitioner was within its competence and
therefore the interference by learned Single Judge is erroneous. For
this purpose, attention of the Court is invited to rule 19(2) of Tamil
Nadu Co-operative Marking Federation Limited by-laws. Learned
Additional Advocate General has further submitted that, the
inspection was ordered and even the disciplinary proceedings were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1757 of 2022
initiated against the writ petitioner by issuance of charge memo on
20.03.2020. It is submitted that, discretion exercised by learned
Single Judge is unsustainable and therefore the same be interfered
with.
3. On the other hand, learned advocate for the writ
petitioner has submitted that, what was alleged against the writ
petitioner can hardly be termed to be misconduct. Even if that is so,
the date on which the writ petitioner had attained the age of
superannuation i.e. 31.03.2016, nothing was pending. It is
submitted that, the powers can be exercised by the employer to
withhold the retirement benefits only in the event of pendency of
disciplinary proceedings, which is not the case qua the writ
petitioner. It is submitted that, the reasons recorded by learned
Single Judge are just and proper and therefore no interference be
made by this Court.
4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective
parties and having considered the material on record this Court
finds that, the action of the appellant of withholding the retirement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1757 of 2022
benefits i.e. gratuity, leave encashment etc., of the writ petitioner
on the date of his retirement (vide order dated 31.03.2016
impugned in writ petition), though may be perceived by the
employer to be within his competence, in any case, in the present
case it could not be termed to be just and proper, and interference
therein by learned Single Judge is just and proper. We note that,
the alleged irregularity is of the year 2011-2015. The charge memo
was issued on 20.03.2020. The same is done almost after four
years (just ten days short of four years) after the superannuation
retirement and the same is just to show that the said exercise was
within competence. The bar of four years is not mere mathematical
calculation. It has to be weighed with the alleged misconduct. If the
alleged misconduct starting from the year 2011 is seen on
20.03.2020, any illegality which is after 20.03.2016 could not be
termed to be within the competence of the employer. Further non
initiation of disciplinary proceedings for almost four years (just ten
days short of four years) is simple colourable exercise of power and
therefore the final direction given by learned Single Judge,
according to us, can not be said to be erroneous. Therefore this
appeal needs to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1757 of 2022
5. For the reason recorded above, this appeal is dismissed.
No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition would not survive.
(P.U., J.) (V.B.S., J.)
24.08.2022
Index:No
ssm/21
To
1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Salem Region,
Salem District.
2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Salem Circle,
Salem District.
3.The Regional Manager,
Tamil Nadu Co-operative Marketing
Federation Limited (TANFED),
Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1757 of 2022
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.,J
ssm
W.A.No.1757 of 2022
24.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
