Madras High Court
P.Singaram vs The Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative ... on 3 September, 2024
Author: Abdul Quddhose
Bench: Abdul Quddhose
W.P.(MD)No.20000 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.09.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD)No.20000 of 2018
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.17779 of 2018
P.Singaram ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Tiruchirappalli Region,
Manarpuram,
Tiruchirappalli-20.
2.The President,
Palakurichi Primary Agricultural
Co-operative Credit Society (M.M.353),
Tiruchirappalli District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned
order passed by the second respondent, dated 13.10.2016 and consequential
order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.
277/2017/Sa.Pa, dated 21.05.2018 and quash the same.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.20000 of 2018
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prahalad Ravi
For Respondents : Mrs.D.Farjana Ghoushia,
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.10.2016,
passed by the second respondent and the order dated 21.05.2018, passed by the
first respondent, imposing punishment on the petitioner, viz., increment cut for a
period of two years with cumulative effect.
2. The petitioner is working as a Salesman in the second respondent
Society since 01.04.1999. The petitioner is placed under suspension by the
second respondent through an order, dated 25.02.2016 relating to the charge
memo issued to him dated 14.03.2016. Subsequently, the second respondent
appointed an Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer had filed a report before
the second respondent stating that all the charges levelled against the petitioner
was proved. The charges pertained to the misappropriation of funds of the
second respondent Society by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his
explanation pertaining to the charge memo in the enquiry proceedings, but, did
not participate in the enquiry proceedings as according to him he was under the
wrong impression that he need not participate in the enquiry proceedings. Since
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Writ Petition filed by him earlier in W.P.(MD).No.9542 of 2016 challenging
the charge memo was pending. The second respondent based on the enquiry
report which has held that the charges framed against the petitioner has been
proved, has imposed the punishment of increment cut for a period of two years
with cumulative effect on the petitioner under the impugned order dated
13.10.2016.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision before the
first respondent. The first respondent confirmed the order of the second
respondent dated 13.10.2016 in his order dated 21.05.2018 and thereby,
confirming the punishment imposed by the second respondent. Aggrieved by
the orders passed by the first and second respondents dated 13.10.2016 and
21.05.2018 respectively as stated supra, this Writ Petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner has deposited the alleged money disclosing in the charge memo with
the second respondent Society on 24.02.2016 and the alleged misappropriation
as per the charge memo is said to have taken place on 22.02.2016, 24.02.2016
and 25.02.2016. He would further submit that the petitioner had also submitted
his explanation to the Enquiry Officer with regard to the charges framed against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
him in the disciplinary proceedings denying that he has misappropriated the
funds of the second respondent Society. He would further submit that only due
to the pendency of the Writ Petition challenging the charge memo, the petitioner
did not participate in the enquiry proceedings after submitting his explanation.
According to him, the enquiry report is an exparte report and he would also
submit that the procedure contemplated for holding an enquiry in the
disciplinary proceeding has not been adhered to since no presenting officer was
appointed and the enquiry officer himself acted as a Prosecutor which is not
permissible under law.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also submit that
since the petitioner had deposited the entire amount disclosed in the charge
memo with the second respondent Society within a short span of time, the
question of imposing such a harsh punishment as imposed in the impugned
order does not arise.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied upon a
Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of
K.Govindasamy Vs. Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation reported in
(1998) 2 MLJ 323 and would submit that the learned Single Judge has followed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Mohinder Singh Vs.
State of Punjab and Others reported in (1994) 2 SCC (L. and S.) 842, wherein,
it has been held that the stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is a major
penalty and the same cannot be imposed without enquiry. Relying upon the
aforesaid decision, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the imposition of punishment as per the impugned orders is a major penalty
and the same ought not to have been imposed without holding a proper enquiry
by the respondents.
7. On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for
the respondents would reiterate the contents of the impugned order and would
submit that only by following the procedure contemplated under law, enquiry
was conducted and only based on the enquiry report, wherein, it has been
categorically found that the charges framed against the petitioner has been
proved, the impugned orders have been passed imposing the punishment of
increment cut for a period of two years with cumulative effect. She would also
distinguish the judgment of the learned Single Judge relied upon by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner as stated supra by stating that in the instant
case, enquiry was conducted, whereas, in the decision relied upon by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, no enquiry was conducted.
Therefore, she would further submit that orders passed by the respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
which are challenged in this Writ Petition have to be upheld by this Court.
8. The following are the undisputed facts:
(a). The petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.30,259/- (Rupees Thirty
Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Nine only) which is alleged to have been
misappropriated by him with the second respondent Society in two instalments
i.e., 24.02.2016 and 26.02.2016. The alleged misappropriation said to have
been committed by the petitioner is on 22.02.2016, 24.02.2016 and 25.02.2016.
(b). The petitioner has also submitted an explanation in the enquiry
proceedings denying that he had misappropriated the funds of the second
respondent Society as claimed in the charge memo framed against him.
(c). No witnesses were examined in the enquiry proceedings on both sides
either on the side of the prosecution or on the side of the delinquent (petitioner).
(d). Only based on the charge memo and the explanation submitted by the
petitioner, the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that charges against
the petitioner as framed in the disciplinary proceedings have been proved.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. The disciplinary authority, viz., the second respondent only based on
the enquiry report has passed the impugned order dated 13.10.2016, imposing
the punishment of increment cut for a period of two years with cumulative
effect on the petitioner. The second respondent has also not considered the
subsequent explanation submitted by the petitioner after the submission of the
enquiry report in the impugned order dated 13.10.2016. In the said explanation
also, once again, the petitioner has reiterated that he is not guilty of the charges
framed against him. The petitioner had also filed a revision aggrieved by the
order of the second respondent, dated 13.10.2016, but, the first respondent has
also rejected the petitioner’s revision by his order dated 21.05.2018 reiterating
the reasons given by the second respondent in his order dated 13.10.2016.
10. The sum involved is only Rs.30,259/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Two
Hundred and Fifty Nine only) and the same has also been repaid by the
petitioner with the second respondent Society within a span of few days from
the alleged date of misappropriation. The same is also not disputed by the
respondents.
11. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Special
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Government Pleader on instructions that except for those charges, there are no
other charges pending against the petitioner and he is also on the verge of
retirement.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also submit that if
a harsh punishment imposed on the petitioner as per the impugned orders is
implemented, the petitioner will lose lot of money by way of monetary benefits.
Which he would have been otherwise entitled to. After giving due
consideration to the aforementioned facts, this Court is of the considered view
that the punishment imposed on the petitioner as per the impugned orders
cannot be set aside in entirety, but, can only be modified.
13. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had to render proper accounts
pertaining to a sum of Rs.30,259/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Two Hundred and
Fifty Nine only) on or before the dates mentioned in the charge memo, but,
whereas he did not do so. But, immediately, within a few days, he had has
deposited the said money to the credit of the second respondent Society and so
no loss has been caused to the second respondent Society. The said fact is also
not disputed by the respondents. Therefore, he cannot be left to go scotfree and
the only relief that can be granted by this Court in this Writ Petition is to modify
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the punishment to a lesser one namely, one of increment cut for a period of two
years without cumulative effect instead of increment cut for a period of two
years with cumulative effect.
14. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of by modifying the
punishment imposed on the petitioner as per the impugned orders passed by the
second and first respondents to one of increment cut for a period of two years
without cumulative effect instead of increment cut for a period of two years
with cumulative effect. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
03.09.2024
NCC:yes/no
Index:yes/no
Internet:yes/no
TSG
To
1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Tiruchirappalli Region,
Manarpuram,
Tiruchirappalli-20.
2.The President,
Palakurichi Primary Agricultural
Co-operative Credit Society (M.M.353),
Tiruchirappalli District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
TSG
03.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
