Madras High Court
G.Pandian vs The Additional Registrar Of Co-Op ... on 23 February, 2022
W.A. No.172 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 23.02.2022
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.A. No.172 of 2013
G.Pandian ...Appellant
Vs.
1.The Additional Registrar of Co-op Societies,
(Marketing, Planning and Development),
Opp: Ega Theatre, Kilpauk, Chennai-10.
2.The Chairman,
Common Cadre Authority / Joint Registrar of
Co-op. Societies, Thiruvannamalai,
Kosamada Street, Thiruvannamalai,
Thiruvannamalai District.
3.The Special Officer,
H.H.498, Nadalaganandal Primary
Agricultural Co-op Bank,
Na.Pudur Village, Konalur Post,
Thiruvannamalai Taluk & District.
4.The President,
H.H.498, Nadalaganandal Primary
Agricultural Co-op Bank,
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.172 of 2013
Na.Pudur Village, Konalur Post,
Thiruvannamalai Taluk & District. ... Respondents
(R4 impleaded as party respondent vide order of Court dated 15.04.2014
made in M.P.No.1 of 2013 in W.A.No.172 of 2013)
Prayer: Writ appeal is filed under clause 15 of the Letter Patent praying to
set aside the order in W.P.No.20231 of 2009 dated 08.06.2010.
For Appellant : Mr.L.Chandrakumar
for M/s.B.Jawahar
For Respondents : No appearance
1 and 2
For Respondents : Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram
3 and 4
JUDGMENT
The appellant/ writ petitioner prays to set aside the dismissal order
passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.20231 of 2019 dated
08.06.2010.
2. It is the case of the appellant/ writ petitioner that he was appointed
in the 3rd respondent Bank as Clerk on 01.08.1984, and thereafter, through
employment exchange, he was appointed as Secretary in the 3rd respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.172 of 2013
Bank. While so, to the shock and surprise, he was issued with charge
memos by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Na.Ka.No.16923
of 2007 Tho.Vae.Ku.Va, dated 17.12.2007 and Na.Ka.No.16923 of 2007
Tho.Vae.Ku.Va, dated 21.02.2008, wherein, several charges were framed
against the appellant/ writ petitioner, including the one of misappropriation
of the society funds to the tune of Rs.12,51,500/- for which enquiry under
Section 81 was initiated against the appellant/ writ petitioner.
Subsequently, surcharge proceedings was also initiated against the
appellant/ writ petitioner and he was, subsequently, dismissed from service
vide order dated 30.10.2008 by the 2nd respondent herein. Thereafter, the
Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies in C.E.P.No.103/2008-09- SP
3/2008-09 dated 17.03.2009 issued an order regarding attachment of the
property belonging to the appellant/ writ petitioner. Aggrieved over the
same, the appellant/ writ petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.20231 of
2009 and the same was dismissed by the learned Single Jude vide an order
of this Court dated 08.06.2010, against which the appellant/ writ petitioner
has come up with this writ appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.172 of 2013
3. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the appellant/ writ
petitioner submitted that no opportunity has been given to the appellant/
writ petitioner to explain in respect of adjustment in the books of account,
and therefore the charge of misappropriation is highly illegal. He further
submitted that the CMA filed with regard to questioning Section 81A
proceedings was also allowed. The learned counsel further contended that if
an opportunity was given to tally the books of accounts, he would have
proved that the charges levelled against him were baseless. The denial to
furnish relevant documents to prove the charges will amount to violation of
principles of natural justice, and on that sole ground the matter may be
remitted to the authority concerned for fresh disposal. The appellant/ writ
petitioner has attained superannuation and is now 63 years old.
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents 3 and 4 contended that the
learned Single Judge has rightly considered various submissions made by
the appellant/ writ petitioner and came to the conclusion that an opportunity
was duly given in the enquiry and that he was unable to account for the sale
of gunny bags belonging to Society as well as the jewel loans extended in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.172 of 2013
the name of fictitious persons. A reading of the explanation given by the
employee would reveal that the amount has been given to third parties,
which the appellant/ writ petitioner was unable to bring on record, resulting
in imposition of punishment.
4.1. The learned counsel for the Respondents 3 and 4 further
contended that the learned Judge has also observed that the appellant/ writ
petitioner was unable to account the jewel loan extended in the name of
fictitious persons and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition filed by the
appellant/ writ petitioner herein. He pointed out that the Revisional
authority also dismissed the petition filed by the appellant/ writ petitioner.
Therefore, he prays to dismiss this appeal.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. The sum and substance of the case revolves around the sale of
gunny bags as well as extension of jewel loans to fictitious persons.
Though, the charge in respect of former one may not be so serious, the latter
part, insofar granting fictitious jewel loan, cannot be taken so slightly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.172 of 2013
Therefore, the Enquiry Officer, based on the evidence let in before him,
came to the conclusion that the charges are established. However, based on
the enquiry report, a Criminal case was also filed against the appellant/ writ
petitioner in Crime No.2 of 2008. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Disciplinary authority -cum-Regional Manager and others vs. Nikunja
Bihari Patnaik reported in (1996) 9 SCC 69 having condemned the
behaviour of an employee acting beyond his/her authority, leading to
indiscipline, so as to spoil the reputation and goodwill earned by the
organisation. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:
“Each officer of the bank cannot be allowed to carve out
his own little empire wherein he dispenses favours and
largesse. No organisation, more particularly, a bank can
function properly and effectively if its officers and employees
do not observe the prescribed norms and discipline. Such
indicipline cannot be condones on the specious ground that it
was not actuated by ulterior motives or by extraneous
considerations.”
7. In view of what is stated herein above, in our opinion, the order of
the learned Single Judge in affirming the order of punishment is perfectly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.172 of 2013
valid and we find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order of the
learned Single Judge.
8. In the result, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
(S.V.N., J.) (M.S.Q., J.)
23.02.2022
Speaking order : Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
smn/mka
To:
1.The Additional Registrar of Co-op Societies,
(Marketing, Planning and Development),
Opp: Ega Theatre, Kilpauk, Chennai-10.
2.The Chairman, Common Cadre Authority / Joint Registrar of
Co-op. Societies, Thiruvannamalai, Kosamada Street,
Thiruvannamalai District.
3.The Special Officer, H.H.498, Nadalaganandal Primary
Agricultural Co-op Bank,Na.Pudur Village, Konalur Post,
Thiruvannamalai Taluk & District.
4.The President,
H.H.498, Nadalaganandal PrimaryAgricultural Co-op Bank,
Na.Pudur Village, Konalur Post, Thiruvannamalai Taluk & District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A. No.172 of 2013
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
smn/mka
W.A.No.172 of 2013
23.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
