Madras High Court
The Management At vs N.Paulraj on 22 August, 2023
WA(MD).No.369 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 22.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A.(MD)No.369 of 2015
The Management at
Manakavilai Primary Agricultural
Co-operative Bank Limited
Manalikkarai Post
Kanyakumari District ... Appellant
Vs.
1.N.Paulraj
2.The Co-operative Tribunal Judge
(District Judge)
Co-operative Tribunal at Nagercoil
Kanyakumari District
3.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Thuckalay Region
Thuckalay Post
Kanyakumari District ... Respondents
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA(MD).No.369 of 2015
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to allow
the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Judge of this Court in
W.P(MD).No.4068 of 2006 dated 06.11.2014.
For Appellant :Mr.T.Amjadkhan
For Respondents :No appearance
****
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.)
The third respondent in the writ petition is the appellant
herein. The first respondent in the writ appeal is the writ petitioner who
had challenged the surcharge order passed under Section 87 of Tamil
Nadu Co-operative Societies Act before the writ Court and the writ Court
was pleased to allow the writ petition. Challenging the same, the
Co-operative Bank has filed the present appeal.
2.The writ petitioner was originally appointed as a salesman in
the Co-operative Bank on 01.09.1973 and he was promoted as a Clerk.
While he was functioning as a Clerk, he was directed to be an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA(MD).No.369 of 2015
in-charge cashier in the place of a regular Cashier for the period between
01.12.1993 to 12.03.1995. During the said period, certain allegations
were made against the writ petitioner which resulted in issuance of a
show cause notice on 24.03.1999 for an enquiry under Section 87. In the
said notice, along with the writ petitioner six other employees were also
implicated. In the enquiry notice, six allegations of financial loss were
made against all the seven employees. The writ petitioner had submitted
his explanation and an order came to be passed on 03.09.1999.
3.As per the said Surcharge Order, the writ petitioner was
found guilty of the charges 2 and 3. The writ petitioner had challenged
the said order in CMA(CS).No.8 of 2001 before the Co-operative
Tribunal, Nagercoil. The learned District Judge after considering the
submissions made on either side was pleased to dismiss the said appeal
on 16.12.2003 confirming the surcharge order. Challenging the said
order, the writ petitioner had filed W.P(MD).No.4068 of 2005.
4.The writ Court had allowed the writ petition on 06.11.2014
on the following grounds:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA(MD).No.369 of 2015
(i)No documents have been produced on the side of
the management to establish the fact that the writ petitioner
was assigned with duties and responsibilities of a Cashier.
(ii)Despite a request made by the writ petitioner, a
copy of Section 81 enquiry report was not furnished to him.
(iii)The surcharge award reveals that the petitioner
has not played any role in causing loss to the Society.
5.Challenging the said order, the present writ appeal has been
filed by the Management.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Co-operative
Bank contended that the writ petitioner has admitted in his counter that
he was performing the duties of a Cashier in the Cash Counter. The
award clearly reveals about the involvement of the writ petitioner in
signing various documents which had resulted in causing loss to the
Society. Therefore, the award clearly shows the role played by the writ
petitioner in creating fake jewel loan accounts and misappropriation of
the amounts credited towards the jewel loan accounts.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA(MD).No.369 of 2015
7. He had further contended that the writ petitioner had
submitted his explanation to the surcharge notice on 05.06.1999 and only
after summons were issued for enquiry, he sought for a copy of Section
81 enquiry report. Though such a request was accepted, the petitioner has
not chosen to peruse the said report. Hence, the writ Court was not right
in allowing the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was not
furnished with a copy of Section 81 enquiry report. Hence, he prayed for
allowing the writ appeal.
8.Though the first respondent/writ petitioner has been served,
there is no representation.
9.We have given anxious consideration to the submissions
made on the side of the appellant and perused the material records.
10.The writ petitioner had received a notice under Section 87
of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act on 24.03.1999 seeking his
explanation with regard to six charges relating to financial loss to the
Society. He had submitted his explanation on 06.06.1999 admitting that
he was instructed to function as an in-charge Cashier for the period
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA(MD).No.369 of 2015
between 01.12.1993 to 12.03.1995.He had further contended that he was
only taking care of the Cash Counter and all other functions of the
Cashier was taken care of other employees and hence, he is not
responsible for any discrepancy or any illegality in the ledgers.
11.The award under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative
Societies Act reveals that the writ petitioner had not only handled the
Cash Counter, but also signed the Jewellery Stock Register. He had also
signed the Registers relating to disbursement of jewel loans. The
authorities had further found that the amount that were credited by the
members, to the loan account, were not brought into the ledger and the
same have been misappropriated. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner
was performing of all the functions of a Cashier including the
maintenance of ledgers relating to the disbursal of the jewel loan and
remittence of amount into the jewel loan account.
12.As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant, the Original Authority had acceded to the request of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA(MD).No.369 of 2015
writ petitioner and granted permission to peruse Section 81 enquiry
report. The writ Court has also recorded a finding in Paragraph No.7 of
the order that the writ petitioner was given an opportunity to peruse the
documents and he had not availed the same due to his ill health.
Therefore, it is clear that the Original Authority cannot be found fault
with for not furnishing a copy of the enquiry report and hence, on the
said ground, the surcharge order cannot be set aside.
13.The writ petitioner had contended in his reply to the notice
under Section 87 of the Act that he was not assigned with any duty other
than handling of the Cash Counter. However, it could be seen from the
surcharge order that the petitioner had signed in various ledgers
especially in the Jewel Stock Registers which are not connected with
Cash Counter duty. The findings of the surcharge order relating to the
signature of the delinquent in various ledgers have not been disputed in
the writ petition. Therefore, the Writ Court was not right in arriving at a
finding that the delinquent had no role to play in causing loss to the
Society.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA(MD).No.369 of 2015
14.In view of the above said deliberations, we find that the
Writ Court was not right in setting aside the surcharge award. The order
passed by the Writ Court is set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed. No
costs.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [R.V.J.,]
22.08.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
msa
To
The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Thuckalay Region
Thuckalay Post
Kanyakumari District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WA(MD).No.369 of 2015
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
Judgment made in
W.A.(MD)No.369 of 2015
Dated:
22.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
