Madras High Court
The Management vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Op ... on 21 July, 2023
W.P.Nos.11484 of 2014 & 1618 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.07.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.Nos.11484 of 2014 & 1618 of 2015 and
MP.Nos.1 of 2014 and 1 of 2015
WP.No.11484 of 2014
The Management,
S 878 Kalvadangam Primary Agricultural
Cooperative Bank Ltd.,
Rep. by its President,
Mettanghadu Village and Post,
Thevur via
Salem District 637 104 ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Registrar of Co-op Societies,
Salem Region,
Salem
2.I.Venkidusamy ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India praying to issue Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first
respondent in its order in Na.Ka.No.7547/2013/Sa.Pa dated 19.03.2014
and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Munusamy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.11484 of 2014 & 1618 of 2015
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.V.Veluchamy,
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.M.Elango
WP.No.1618 of 2015
I.Venkidusamy ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Registrar of Co-op Societies,
Salem Collectorate Complex,
Salem
2.The President,
S 878 Kalvadangam Primary Agricultural
Cooperative Bank Ltd.,
Mettangkadu Village and Post,
Thevur via
Salem District 637 104 ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records of the first respondent herein in his proceedings
Na.Ka.No.7547/2013 r/g/ dated 19.03.2014 insofar as canceling the
promotion to the post of Secretary and imposing a punishment of
stoppage of increment for two years cumulative effect to the petitioner
herein quash the same and to direct the second respondent herein to
permit the petitioner in the post of Secretary of the second respondent
Society with continuity of service, backwages and other benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Elango
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.11484 of 2014 & 1618 of 2015
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.V.Veluchamy,
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram,
Special Government Pleader
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed by the employee and
employer challenging the order passed by the first respondent thereby
modified the punishment from dismissal from service to stoppage of
increment with cumulative effect for a period of two years.
2. Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side.
3. The petitioner in WP.No.1618 of 2015 is hereinafter called
as employee and the petitioner n WP.No.11484 of 2014 is hereinafter
called as employer. The employee was appointed as Jewel Appraiser and
subsequently he was promoted as Cashier. Thereafter, he was promoted
as Assistant Secretary of the management with effect from 01.05.2013.
The promotion to the post of Secretary which is the subject matter in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.11484 of 2014 & 1618 of 2015
both the writ petitions. The employee was served with charge memo that
he had erased entry of Secretary (incharge) and had written as promoted
as Secretary in the Resolution Register thereby manipulated the minutes
book of the management. He was suspended from service. He was served
with show cause notice on the basis of the charge memo. On receipt of
the same, the employee submitted his explanation that it was happened
due to urgency and inadvertence. Therefore he sought for apology and
undertaking was given by him that not to indulge in any kind of activity
in future. He also had undertaken not to approach any court or
appropriate forum for any relief. However, the management appointed
enquiry officer and enquiry was conducted.
4 On the enquiry, the enquiry officer found that the charge
was proved against him. On the strength of the enquiry report, he was
removed from service. Aggrieved by the same, the employee filed
revision before the first respondent. The first respondent found that the
employee was charged that he had tampered the records by making
corrections, and deletion and erasing the entries in the resolution book.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.11484 of 2014 & 1618 of 2015
However later, the Cooperative Sub Registrar / Administrator himself
had countersigned the same and in his proceedings dated 02.05.2013,
accordingly the Administrator had passed promotion order to the
employee as Secretary. It shows that charges levelled against the
employee cannot stand. Further, the order of promotion was issued in
violation of Section 149 of Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act.
Therefore, the first respondent rightly cancelled the order of promotion
and imposed punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect
for period of two years.
5. The learned counsel for the employee submitted that the
enquiry officer failed to examine any one and based on the records order
was passed, that too with capital punishment. The petitioner did not
obtain any pecuniary advantage by alleged manipulation of records. Even
after the order passed by the first respondent, the management failed to
reinstate him into service. The Administrator or the Secretary were not
examined before the enquiry officer. In support of his contention, he also
relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.11484 of 2014 & 1618 of 2015
K.Manickam Vs. The Secretary to Government, Revenue (Service 7(1))
Department, Chennai in WP.989 of 2015 dated 31.03.2022, in which
this Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India rendered in the case of A.Savariar Vs. The Secretary , Tamilnadu
Public Service Commissioner and another in Civil Appeal Nos.1078
and 1079 of 2013 dated 15.02.2013 thereby held that the enquiry officer
performs a quasi-judicial function and the charges levelled against the
delinquent officer must be proved on the basis of the witnesses and mere
production of documents in the enquiry will not prove the contents
thereof.
6. Whereas on perusal of records, statement of the management
and the statement of the employee were recorded by the enquiry officer.
Only through them all the documents were given to cross examine.
Therefore, it cannot be said that no one was examined by the enquiry
officer. Therefore, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is not applicable to the case on hand. Further, the punishment
imposed by the management is disproportionate and it would amount to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.11484 of 2014 & 1618 of 2015
unfair labour practice, illegal and intimidation of employee. Therefore,
the first respondent rightly modified the punishment of dismissal from
service into stoppage of increment for period of two years with
cumulative effect. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the
order passed by the first respondent and both the writ petitions fail.
7. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
21.07.2023
Internet: Yes
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.11484 of 2014 & 1618 of 2015
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To
1.The Joint Registrar of Co-op Societies,
Salem Region,
Salem
2. The President,
S 878 Kalvadangam Primary Agricultural
Cooperative Bank Ltd.,
Mettangkadu Village and Post,
Thevur via
Salem District 637 104
3. The Government Advocate
High Court, Madras.
W.P.Nos.11484 of 2014 & 1618 of 2015
21.07.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
