Madras High Court
Y-74 vs The Joint Registrar Of ... on 17 October, 2022
W.P(MD)No.1984 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.10.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.1984 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD)No.1652 of 2020
Y-74, Mela Krishnanputhor Primary
Agricultural Cooperative Bank,
Rep. by its President,
R.Kumaralingesan. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.
2.S.Thavasilingam ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to
the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.1688/2015/Sa.Pa
dated 04.07.2019 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Selvakumaran
For Respondents : Mr.R.Ragavendran,
Government Advocate for R1.
Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi
For Mr.G.Rajaguru for R2.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P(MD)No.1984 of 2020
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2.The Management of the Cooperative Society is the writ petitioner. The
Management challenges the order passed by the the first respondent under
Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act in a revision petition
filed by the employee/second respondent herein. The employee had questioned
the order whereby he was removed from service. The first respondent by order
dated 04.07.2019 set aside the same and directed reinstatement of the employee
with all consequential benefits.
3.The only question that calls for consideration is whether in this writ
petition, such an order has to be interfered with.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set
out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. He contended that the
second respondent was accused of having stolen the properties belonging to the
society and that therefore, this Court ought not to show any indulgence to the
second respondent herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.1984 of 2020
5.I am not persuaded by the contention advanced by the learned counsel
for the Management/writ petitioner herein. As rightly pointed out by the
learned counsel for the employee, the removal order was passed without
holding any enquiry. There is no dispute that S.Thavasilingam/second
respondent herein is a confirmed employee in the writ petitioner society. Such
an employee can be removed only after following the procedure set out in the
relevant bye-laws. In this case, the order removing him from service has been
straightaway passed. Of course, the order dated 18.03.2005 states that the
employee was given notice and since no explanation was received from him, he
was being removed from service. Removal from service cannot be done in such
a summary fashion. Charge memo must be issued, explanation must be
obtained, an enquiry officer must be appointed, the enquiry report, if adverse to
the employee must be served on the employee, his further representation must
be obtained, only thereafter an order of dismissal can be passed. In this case,
the entire process has been short-circuited. Therefore, the first respondent
rightly interfered in the matter.
6.Of course, in the order passed by the Management, there is reference to
an allegation of theft. But the said allegation was subject matter of criminal
prosecution and the petitioner also obtained acquittal vide judgment dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.1984 of 2020
13.06.2006 in C.C.No.109 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.III, Nagercoil.
7.In view of the sheer lapse of time, I am not inclined to remand the
matter and the issue deserves to be given quietus here and now.
8.While setting aside the order of removal and directing his
reinstatement, the first respondent herein has not passed any order for
backwages. Therefore, no further interference is called for. The Management
is expected to comply with the order passed by the statutory authority by
reinstating the petitioner as early as possible. Since the order of removal has
been set aside, the employee/second respondent herein is entitled to continuity
of service.
9.The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
17.10.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.1984 of 2020
To:
The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.1984 of 2020
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
W.P(MD)No.1984 of 2020
17.10.2022
(2/3)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
