Madras High Court
The Kumbakonam Co-Operative vs D.Rajendran on 7 March, 2023
W.A(MD)No.625 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 07.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN
W.A(MD)No.625 of 2012
and
M.P(MD)No.2 of 2012
1.The Kumbakonam Co-operative
Urban Bank Ltd., represented
through its Secretary,
36, Nageswaran Sannathi Street,
Kumbakonam-612 001.
2.The Deputy Registrar of
Co-operative Societies,
Kumbakonam,
72/36 Sarangapani Sannathi Street,
Kumbakonam-612 001. ... Appellants/Respondents
.Vs.
D.Rajendran ... Respondent/Petitioner
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, to set
aside the order dated 14.07.2011 made in W.P(MD)No.8323 of 2008.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.625 of 2012
For appellants : Mr.R.Ragavendran
Government Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.S.Seenivasagam
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by R. SURESH KUMAR,J.)
Assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India in W.P(MD)No.8323 of 2008, dated 14.07.2011, the
present intra Court appeal has been filed.
2. The appellants before this Court are the respondents in the writ petition,
where, the respondent herein had challenged the Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu
Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 proceedings passed against the respondent
herein, who was the writ petitioner (hereinafter called as writ petitioner) on the
ground that, the Section 87 proceedings passed by the appellants against the writ
petitioner was because that, the writ petitioner had released the salary of
Rs.2,04,468/- to and in favour of M.Marimuthu, who was an employee of the
Bank, to whom such salary had already been fixed by the predecessor of the writ
petitioner, therefore, he claimed that he had only implemented the order passed by
the predecessor.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.625 of 2012
3. However, the appellants having found fault with the said action on the
part of the writ petitioner in releasing the salary, initiated the Section 87
proceedings and ultimately passed the order impugned in the writ petition, dated
29.02.2008 to recover the said amount from the writ petitioner. Aggrieved over
the same, the respondent herein has filed the aforesaid writ petition.
4. The learned Single Judge, who heard the matter, has found that, insofar
as the fixation of the salary to the employee M.Marimuthu is concerned, that
order still holds good as it has not been set aside though it may be wrong. Unless
and until that order fixing the salary to the employee M.Marimuthu is set aside or
modified, acted upon pursuant to the said order, which was already passed by the
predecessor of the writ petitioner and releasing the salary cannot be found fault
with and moreover the same issue cannot be brought under the purview of
Section 87 of the Act itself.
5. We have heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
appellants as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.625 of 2012
6. In fact, the learned counsel for the respondent has brought to the notice
of this Court that, insofar as the fixation of salary for the said employee
Marimuthu is concerned that has been approved and ratified by the very bank i.e.,
the appellants bank by the latest proceedings dated 29.12.2022, wherein, the bank
has stated the following:-
“Fk;gNfhzk; $l;LwT efu tq;fpapy; Nkyhsuhf
gzpGhpe;j jpU.vk;.khhpKj;J vd;gtUf;F rk;gs epHzak;
njhlHghd jzpf;if kWg;G &.4>31>754/- tq;fpapd; 2015-2016
Mk; Mz;L jzpf;if mwpf;ifapd;gb
kWf;fg;gl;l ,dj;jpy; ,Ue;J tpLtpf;fg;gl;L nryT fzf;fpw;F
nfhz;L nry;yg;gl;L NeH nra;ag;gl;Ltpl;lJ vd;gjid
md;Gld; njhptpj;Jf;nfhs;fpNwd;.”
7. Relying upon this communication, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent/writ petitioner would submit that in fact the issue has been given
quietus or it is concluded by virtue of the ratification order passed by the bank
itself insofar as the salary that has been fixed to the said employee Marimuthu,
therefore, the part of the salary which was released by the writ petitioner also is
strictly in consonance with the orders passed by the bank or on behalf of the
bank, therefore, the question of recovering any amount from the writ petitioner
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.625 of 2012
does not arise as projected by the appellants, which triggered the respondent/writ
petitioner to file the writ petition.
8. Heard Mr.R.Ragavendran, the learned Government Advocate appearing
for the appellants, who would submit that, even assuming that the amount has
already been fixed as salary to the employee Marimuthu, before releasing the
amount, the appellants should have been approached that after getting their
approval only the said amount should have been released, without such approval
being given by the appellants herein, writ petitioner/respondent ought not to have
acted upon in releasing the amount belongs to the bank, thereby since he caused
the loss to the bank such proceedings under Section 87 of the Act become
necessitated, he contended.
9. We have considered the said submission made by the learned
Government Advocate appearing for the appellants also, which in fact has been
dealt with by the learned Single Judge in para-12 of the order, wherein the learned
Judge has held that there is no provision, under which the Special Officer,
exercising the power of the administrative committee, was required to take prior
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.625 of 2012
approval of Registrar to implement the order or the society. In absence of
statutory provisions, rules or instructions, it can be raised that prior approval of
Registrar was not required. This stand taken by the writ petitioner was in fact,
dealt with by the learned Judge in para-13 of the order impugned in the wording
that “I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the
absence of an order holding, the refixation of the salary or modified to be wrong
it cannot said that there was any loss caused to the society”. For these reasons
which have been stated by the learned Judge in justifying the order and by taking
note of the subsequent ratification order passed by the appellants bank dated
29.12.2022, we feel that the order impugned passed by the writ Court is to be
sustained as it does not call for any interference from this Court.
10. In view of the same, the writ appeal fails, hence, it is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[R.S.K.,J.] [K.K.R.K.,J.]
07.03.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
am
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No.625 of 2012
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
and
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
am
JUDGMENT MADE IN
W.A(MD)No.625 of 2012
07.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
