Madras High Court

S-1223 vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 15 September, 2025

Author: R. Suresh Kumar

Bench: R.Suresh Kumar

                                                                                       W.A No. 1336 of 2023


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                            DATED: 15-09-2025

                                                     CORAM

                              THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

                                                        AND

                    THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

                                            W.A No. 1336 of 2023

                                                        And

                                           CMP.No. 13092 of 2023

                S-1223, Chandrasekarapuram Primary
                Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society,
                Rep by its Secretary,
                Chandrasekarapuram P.O,
                Rasipuram Taluk,
                Namakkal District -637401                                                ..Appellant
                                                          Vs
                1. State of Tamil Nadu
                Rep by Secretary, Cooperative Department,
                Fort St. George, Chennai.


                2.The Registrar of Cooperative Societies
                170, Periyar EVR Salai,
                Kilpauk, Chennai-600010.




                1


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )
                                                                                            W.A No. 1336 of 2023


                3.The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies,
                Collectorate,
                Namakkal.


                4.Loganathan,
                5.S.Radha                                                               ..Respondents
                          Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent to set aside the

                order dated 20.07.2021 passed in W.P.No. 28548 of 2017.


                                  For Appellant: Mr.B.Tamil Nidhi
                                  For Respondents : Mrs. E.Ranganayaki, AGP - R1 to R3
                                                      Mr J.Srinivasa Mohan
                                                     For M/s. TVJ Associates – R5
                                                     No appearance - R4


                                                  JUDGMENT

(Made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.)

This intra-Court appeal assails the order dated 20.07.2021 passed by the

learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 28548 of 2017. By the said order, the order of

dismissal passed by the appellant against the 5th respondent/writ petitioner was

set aside, and the appellant-society was directed to pay all consequential

monetary and service benefits arising therefrom.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )

2. The 5th respondent/writ petitioner, while serving as Secretary of the

appellant-society, was issued a charge memo dated 27.05.2015. An enquiry was

thereafter conducted, and a report was submitted holding that the charges stood

proved. The appellant-society, after considering the enquiry report and the

explanation offered, passed an order dismissing the 5th respondent/writ

petitioner from service. The learned Single Judge, however, set aside the order

of dismissal and passed the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ

appeal has been filed.

3. Mr. B. Tamil Nidhi, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that

one Mr. Loganathan, then President of the society, had issued the charge memo

and also passed the order of dismissal. He had also participated in the enquiry

proceedings as a witness on behalf of the management, since the 5th respondent

had requested that the President be examined. On that request, the Enquiry

Officer summoned the President. Therefore, it cannot be said that the enquiry

was vitiated merely because the President had participated in the proceedings. It

was further contended that if this Court ultimately affirms the order of the

learned Single Judge, the 5th respondent/writ petitioner is not entitled to arrears

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )

of salary on the principle of “no work, no pay.”

4. Per contra, Mr. J. Srinivasa Mohan, learned counsel for the 5th

respondent/writ petitioner submitted that the then President was summoned

because, during cross-examination of the management representative, when a

question was posed as to why the President had refused to accept the

delinquent’s leave application for medical treatment, the management

representative answered that the delinquent had to approach the President. In

that context, the President was summoned. The learned counsel argued that it

was the duty of the management representative to answer the question put in

cross-examination, and the involvement of the President in the proceedings,

despite being the authority who issued the charge memo and dismissal order,

vitiated the entire enquiry.

5. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both

parties and have perused the materials placed on record.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )

6. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the original charge

memo dated 27.05.2015 and the punishment order dated 30.01.2016, dismissing

the 5th respondent/writ petitioner from service, were both issued by Mr.

Loganathan, then President of the society. The learned Single Judge further

noted that the enquiry report dated 04.12.2015 itself shows that the same

person, namely Mr. P. Loganathan, acted as a witness on behalf of the

management. The learned Single Judge, at paragraphs 8 and 9 of the impugned

order, referred to the settled proposition of law that “no man can be a judge in

his own cause”, as reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Yunus

Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2010) 10 SCC 539. The Supreme

Court held that initiation of disciplinary proceedings, participation as a witness,

acceptance of the enquiry report, and imposition of punishment by the same

authority is impermissible in law and a flagrant violation of the principles of

natural justice.

7. Furthermore, the President of the Cooperative Society was summoned

only when the Management Representative, in response to a suggestion that he

was not aware whether any leave application had been submitted to the

President, stated that the respondent–writ petitioner may put the same question

to the President. In that context, the President of the Cooperative Society was

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )

summoned, and such summoning was solely at the instance of the Management

Representative.

8. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, the learned Single Judge

concluded that the action initiated by the President of the co-operative society,

his participation as a witness in the enquiry, and his subsequent acceptance of

the enquiry report and imposition of punishment, was impermissible in law.

Consequently, the order of dismissal was held to be null and void.

9. We find no infirmity in the conclusion of the learned Single Judge that

the enquiry proceedings and the consequential order of dismissal were vitiated

for violation of the principles of natural justice. To that extent, the order of the

learned Single Judge is upheld.

10. As regards the contention of the appellant that the 5th

respondent/writ petitioner is not entitled to arrears of salary on the principle of

“no work, no pay”, we are of the considered view that interference is warranted.

The 5th respondent/writ petitioner cannot claim the entire arrears of salary, as

he had not worked during the period between his dismissal and reinstatement.

However, since the dismissal was found to be vitiated for violation of natural

justice attributable to the appellant-society, the 5th respondent/writ petitioner is

entitled to 50% of the arrears of salary for the said period. Denial of arrears in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )

full would cause undue hardship to the employee, while granting 50% arrears

would balance equities.

11. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

(i) The impugned order, insofar as it sets aside the order of dismissal dated 02.09.2016 and the order dated 10.04.2017 passed by the respondent-authorities, is confirmed.

(ii) The writ appeal is disposed of with a modification that the 5th respondent/writ petitioner shall be entitled to 50% of arrears of salary from the date of dismissal, i.e., 02.09.2016, till the date of reinstatement.

(iii) The 5th respondent/writ petitioner shall be reinstated into service within one month from the date of uploading of this order on the official website of this Court, with all consequential benefits including continuity of service but with 50% arrears of salary.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )

(iv) In all other respects, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge shall remain unaltered.

(v) Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs

(R.S.K.,J) (H.C., J)

15.09.2025

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes / No ak To

1. The Secretary, Cooperative Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.

2.The Registrar of Cooperative Societies 170, Periyar EVR Salai, Kilpauk, Chennai-600010.

3.The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Collectorate, Namakkal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 11:43:47 am )

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

and