Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution v. herein and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd

W.P.Nos.21265 of 2012the deducted increment amount for one year with interest for the belated payment.Prayer in W.P.No.21266 of 2012: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings Na.Ka.5646/2009 Aa.2 dated 15.10.2009 passed by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to pay the deducted increment amount for one year with interest for the belated payment.Prayer in W.P.No.21267 of 2012: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings Na.Ka.5647/2009 Aa.2 dated 15.10.2009 passed by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to pay the deducted increment amount for one year with interest for the belated payment.For Petitioner: Mr. T.SundaravadanamFor Respondents : Ms.Geetha Thamaraiselvan, Spl.G.P.for R1 Mrs.G.Thilagavathi, Senior Advocate for M/s.R.Gopinath for R2COMMON ORDERThe petitioner was employed as Field Manager in the Vaniyambadi Circle of the second respondent. Three identical charges were issued to him __________Page 2 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21265 of 2012alleging involvement inmisappropriation and dereliction of duty and negligence resulting in losses to the second respondent. The petitioner replied to the charge memo. Pursuant to an inquiry, inquiry reports were issued in respect of the charges referred to above. Upon receipt thereof, final orders were issued by the disciplinary authority. Revision petitions were filed by the petitioner challenging these orders. Such revision petitions were rejected by the first respondent in orders impugned in these writ petitions.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the charge memo dated 16.02.2007 in W.P.No.21265 of 2012. By further referring to inquiry report, he pointed out that only documentary evidence was relied upon therein. He contends that the relevant loans were disbursed during the period when the petitioner was not employed as Field Manager in the Vaniyambadi Circle. Consequently, he submits that the petitioner should have been provided an opportunity to cross-examine officials of the Primary Co-operative Bank. Since such opportunity was not provided to the petitioner, he contends that principles of natural justice were contravened and that it is just and necessary that the matter be remanded to the Joint __________Page 3 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21265 of 2012Registrar for reconsideration.3. The next contention of learned counsel is that no loss was caused to the respondents inasmuch as the misappropriated amounts were recovered pursuant to surcharge proceedings. By reiterating that the alleged misappropriation occurred when the petitioner was not in employment in the Vaniyambadi Circle, learned counsel concluded his submissions by contending that persons who were in-charge during the relevant point of time were allowed to go scot free, whereas the petitioner has been saddled with liability.4. In response to these contentions, learned senior counsel for the second respondent submitted that principles of natural justice were duly complied with. By referring to the inquiry report, learned senior counsel submitted that it is recorded therein that the petitioner was provided a reasonable opportunity and that the petitioner participated in proceedings along with his assistant, Mr.G.Arumugam. She also pointed out that an opportunity was provided to the petitioner to adduce evidence, including oral __________Page 4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21265 of 2012evidence, to defend himself against the charges. She further submitted that all amounts due and payable to the petitioner were paid to him by relying upon a communication dated 20.02.2024 from the second respondent.5. Since principles of natural justice were duly complied with, learned senior counsel submitted that no case has been made out for interference either with the order of the disciplinary authority or with the order in the revision petition.6. Learned counsel for the first respondent pointed out that the petitioner was held liable because the petitioner had sanctioned the renewal of loans without exercising due diligence. In this connection, she referred to and relied upon the order passed in the revision petition pertaining to W.P.No.21266 of 2012.7. In all these three writ petitions, the charge framed against the petitioner is identical. By way of illustration, the charge framed under charge __________Page 5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21265 of 2012memo dated 16.02.2007 in W.P.No.21265 of 2012 is set out below:“jpU/b$/ Kdpuh$%Y 14/9/05 Kjy; 4/1/06 tiu thzpak;gho ruf fs nkyhsuhf gzpg[hpe;jnghJ. ,tUila fl;Lg;ghl;oypUe;j nf.brl;oag;gD}h; bjhlf;f ntshz;ikf; Tl;Lwt[ t';fpapy; fld; kw;Wk; ,ju fld;fs; tH';fpajpy; eilbgw;w KiwnfLfisf; fz;L gpoj;J mwpf;if rkh;g;gpf;fj; jtwpaikf;fhf ,th; kPJ fPH;f;fz;l Fw;wr;rhl;L Rkj;jg;gLfpwJ/@,th; jd; flik kw;Wk; bghWg;[gfspypUe;J jtwp. nf/brl;oag;gD}h; bjhlf;f ntshz;ikf; Tl;Lwt[ t';fpapy; eilbgw;Ws;s KiwnfLfs; kw;Wk; ifahly;fisf; fz;L gpoj;J mwpf;if rkh;g;gpj;Jj; jtwpajd; KPyk; bjhlf;f t';fpapd; epjpia CHpah;fs; ifahly; bra;af; fhuzkhf ,Ue;Js;snjhL ika t';fpapd; epjpiaa[k; ghJfhf;fj; jtwpa[s;shh;/”In the inquiry report pertaining to this charge, it is recorded as under:“,t;t[j;jutpw;fpz';f. jpU/b$/ Kdpuh$%Y kPjhd Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;fs; bjhlh;ghd cs;sPl;L tprhuizia ehd; 14.6.2008k; njjpapy;. ntY}h; khtl;l kj;jpa Tl;Lwt[ t';fpapd; thzpak;gho fpis mYtyfj;jpy; nkw;bfhz;nld;/ ,e;j tprhuiz eltof;ifapy. ntY}h; khtl;l kj;jpa Tl;Lwt[ t';fpapd; epUthfj;jug;g[ gpujpepjpahf. mt;t';fpapd; jiyik mYtyfj;jpy; gzpahw;Wk; jpU. v!;/kzp. nkyhsh;(gzpf;FG) fye;J bfhz;lhh;/ Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;l mYtyh; jpU/b$/ Kdpuh$%Yt[k;. mtUila cjtpahsuhd jpU.Ip/MWKfk; vd;gtUk; fye;J bfhz;lhh;/ Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;l mYtyh; jd; kPjhd Fw;wr;rhl;LfSf;F jdJ kWg;g[iu tpsf;f';fis bjhptpf;f njitahd midj;J tha;g;g[f;fisa[k; mtUf;F __________Page 6 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21265 of 2012mspf;Fk; bghUl;L. MtuJ jug;g[ Mtz kw;Wk; egh; rhl;rpa';fis tprhuiz mYtyhpd; Kd;ghf jhf;fy; bra;at[k; M$h; gLj;jt[k; Fw;wr;rhl;L bjhlh;g[ila eph;thfj;jug;g[ Mtz';fis ghprPyid bra;at[k;. epUthfj;jug;g[ rhl;rpa';fis FWf;F tprhuiz bra;at[k;. jdf;F ,t;tprhuizapy; cjtpl xUrfgzpahsiu epakpj;J bfhs;st[k; tha;g;gspf;fg;gl;lJ/ ,J bjhlh;ghd ,tuJ nfhhpf;iffis xU tpdhg;gotk; KPyk; tprhuiz mYtyhplk; ,th; mspj;jhh;/ (vjrhM2) ,t;thwhd tprhuiz eilKiwfspd;goa[k;. ,aw;if epajpfspd; nfhl;ghLfisg; gpd;gw;wpa[k; ,t;tprhuiz eLepiy nehf;Fld; ftdkhf elj;jp Kof;fg;bgw;wJ/ ,t;tprhuizapd; nghJ epUthfj;jug;g[ gpujpepjp jdJ thf;FK:yj;ij mspj;jhh;/ (ep/jh/rh/M)(3)/ Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;l mYtyUk; jdJ thf;FK:y rhl;rpaj;ij mspj;jhh;/ (vjrhM(3)/ ,t;thf;FK:y';fs; tprhuiz mYtyuhfpa vd;dhy; gjptp bra;ag;gl;L rk;gj;ejg;gl;lth;fspd; xg;g[jYk; bgwg;gl;lJ/ ”8. The above extract discloses that the petitioner participated in the proceedings before the inquiry officer and was assisted by Thiru. Arumugam. The inquiry report also discloses that the petitioner was provided an opportunity to lead evidence. The petitioner replied to the charge memo on 27.06.2007. In response to the inquiry report dated 27.09.2008, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 07.02.2009. On __________Page 7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21265 of 2012perusal of reply dated 27.06.2007, it is evident that the petitioner did not request that he be provided an opportunity to examine witnesses. Likewise, the petitioner did not state in explanation dated 07.02.2009 that he was prejudiced by being denied the opportunity to examine witnesses. 9. The by-laws of the Vellore District Central Co-operative Bank have been placed on record. By-law 19 appears to specify the penalties that may be imposed pursuant to disciplinary proceedings. By-law 21 deals with the imposition of penalty and the procedure relating thereto. In relevant part, it reads as under:“21. IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES(1) (a) No penalty shall be impose don any employee unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of making any representation that he may desire to make and such representation, if any, shall be taken into consideration before orders are passed. (b) No major penalty specified in Special bylaw No.19 shall be imposed on any employee, unless a domestic inquiry is conducted and the employee concerned has been afforded an __________Page 8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21265 of 2012opportunity to defend himself:....(4) The procedure for imposing any of the penalties specified in By-law 19 shall be as follows: .... 4 (d) The disciplinary authority shall order for a domestic inquiry, appoint an Inquiry Officer and nominate the Presenting Officer. The disciplinary authority himself shall not be the inquiry officer. The time limit for completing the domestic inquiry and submission of the inquiry report shall be specified in the order appointing the inquiry officer. The inquiry shall be conducted on the basis of principles of natural justice. The employee charged shall be given an opportunity to be present during the course of examination of witnesses and to cross examine the witnesses. The inquiry officer shall prepare a report, which shall contain sufficient record of evidence, if any, and statement of the findings and grounds thereof; but shall not suggest the penalty to be imposed or any recommendation in this behalf.”__________Page 9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21265 of 201210. The above by-law discloses that a reasonable opportunity should be provided to the employee concerned to defend himself, especially if a major penalty is to be imposed. The inquiry report indicates that a reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner. Clause (d) of by-law – 21 further provides that the employee shall be provided an opportunity to be present when witnesses are examined and to cross examine witnesses of the department. In this case, the inquiry report discloses that the petitioner was provided an opportunity to lead evidence, including oral evidence, but did not avail of such opportunity. As stated earlier, the petitioner also did not request for an opportunity to examine witnesses either in the reply dated 24.12.2008 to the charge memo or complain that this prejudiced him in the explanation dated 07.03.2009 in response to the inquiry report. In these circumstances, the objection raised by the petitioner on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice cannot be countenanced.11. The other ground on which the petitioner impugned the order of punishment was that he was not in employment during the relevant period. In the order dated 15.10.2009 in the revision petition forming the subject of __________Page 10 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21265 of 2012W.P.No.21266 of 2012, it is recorded, in relevant part, as under:“,tuJ gzpf;fhyj;jpy; eph;zapf;fg;gl;l flik kw;Wk; bghWg;g[fspd;go bray;glhky; kWepjp nfhUk; gotk; 4y; ifbahg;gk; bra;J fld; gl;Lthlhtpid Kiwnflhf mDkjpj;Js;sjd; K:yk; ,t;t';fpapy; U:/6/62 ,yl;rk; Kiwnflhd fld;fs; tH';fg;gl fhuzkhf ,Ue;Js;shh;/”Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reference therein is to the sanctioning of renewal of loans previously sanctioned and that the petitioner cannot be held responsible in respect thereof. This contention is untenable because it cannot be said that a Field Manager sanctioning the renewal of a loan may do so without independently verifying whether the borrower is entitled to credit.12. As regards the conclusions on the charges framed against the petitioner, it is pertinent to refer to the operative portion of the orders in the revision proceedings. By way of illustration, the operative portion of the order dated 15.10.2009 in W.P.No.21265 of 2012 is set out below:“;mftprhuiz mwpf;ifapy;. ,th; kPJ rhl;lg;gl;l Fw;wr;rhl;oy; bjhlf;f ntshz;ik Tl;Lwt[ fld; r';fj;jpd; __________Page 11 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21265 of 2012epjpapid mjd; CHpah;fs; ifahly; bra;a kDjhuh; fhuzkhf ,Ue;Js;shh; vd;w gFjp Fw;wr;rhl;L kl;Lk; epU:gzkhftpy;iy vd;whYk;. kDjhuh; epjpia ghJfhg;gjpy; nghjpa bghWg;g[ld; bray;gltpy;iy vd;w Fw;wr;rhl;Lk; gFjpahf epU:gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ kDjhuh; K:d;W Kiw nkw;go r';fj;jpw;F tp$ak; bra;jpUe;Jk;. buhf;f ,Ug;g[. eifapUg;g[ ,tw;iw rhpghh;f;f jtwpajpdhy; r';fj;jpy; mjpf mst[ epjpapHg;g[ Vw;gl kDjhuh; fhuzkhf ,Ue;Js;shh; vd;w t';fpapd; epiyg;ghl;il Vw;Wf;bfhz;L t';fp eph;thfj;jhy; tH';fg;gl;l jz;lidia cWjp bra;J ,e;j rPuha;t[ kD js;Sgo bra;J cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.”From the above extract, it is clear that the portion of the charge relating to the petitioner's involvement in misappropriation was held to be not proved, whereas the portion of the charge relating to the failure to perform duties with diligence and reasonable care has been held to be proved. In those circumstances, the punishment of withholding one increment for one year was imposed in respect of each of the three charges assailed in these writ petitions.13. On examining the relevant orders of the second respondent and the first respondent, it cannot be concluded that these orders were issued on __________Page 12 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21265 of 2012the basis of no evidence or completely irrelevant evidence. In fine, it cannot be said that the orders are vitiated by perversity. It should be borne in mind that reappraisal of evidence cannot be undertaken in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, as regards punishment, no interference is called for unless the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate or unconscionable. Since the impugned orders do not fall within the above criteria for interference, no interference is warranted. Hence, these writ petitions are dismissed without any order as to costs.19.12.2024Index : Yes/NoInternet : Yes/NoNeutral Citation : Yes/Nokal__________Page 13 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21265 of 2012SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J.kal To1. The Joint Registrar ofCo-operative Societies, Vellore Region, Vellore District.2. The Special Officer,Vellore District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd.Vellore – 1.W.P.Nos.21265, 21266 & 21267 of 201219.12.2024__________Page 14 of 14

W.P.Nos.21265 of 2012the deducted increment amount for one year with interest for the belated payment.Prayer in W.P.No.21266 of 2012: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings Na.Ka.5646/2009 Aa.2 dated 15.10.2009 passed by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to pay the deducted increment amount for one year with interest for the belated payment.Prayer in W.P.No.21267 of 2012: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings Na.Ka.5647/2009 Aa.2 dated 15.10.2009 passed by the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to pay the deducted increment amount for one year with interest for the belated payment.For Petitioner: Mr. T.SundaravadanamFor Respondents : Ms.Geetha Thamaraiselvan, Spl.G.P.for R1 Mrs.G.Thilagavathi, Senior Advocate for M/s.R.Gopinath for R2COMMON ORDERThe petitioner was employed as Field Manager in the Vaniyambadi Circle of the second respondent. Three identical charges were issued to him __________Page 2 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21265 of 2012alleging involvement inmisappropriation and dereliction of duty and negligence resulting in losses to the second respondent. The petitioner replied to the charge memo. Pursuant to an inquiry, inquiry reports were issued in respect of the charges referred to above. Upon receipt thereof, final orders were issued by the disciplinary authority. Revision petitions were filed by the petitioner challenging these orders. Such revision petitions were rejected by the first respondent in orders impugned in these writ petitions.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the charge memo dated 16.02.2007 in W.P.No.21265 of 2012. By further referring to inquiry report, he pointed out that only documentary evidence was relied upon therein. He contends that the relevant loans were disbursed during the period when the petitioner was not employed as Field Manager in the Vaniyambadi Circle. Consequently, he submits that the petitioner should have been provided an opportunity to cross-examine officials of the Primary Co-operative Bank. Since such opportunity was not provided to the petitioner, he contends that principles of natural justice were contravened and that it is just and necessary that the matter be remanded to the Joint __________Page 3 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21265 of 2012Registrar for reconsideration.3. The next contention of learned counsel is that no loss was caused to the respondents inasmuch as the misappropriated amounts were recovered pursuant to surcharge proceedings. By reiterating that the alleged misappropriation occurred when the petitioner was not in employment in the Vaniyambadi Circle, learned counsel concluded his submissions by contending that persons who were in-charge during the relevant point of time were allowed to go scot free, whereas the petitioner has been saddled with liability.4. In response to these contentions, learned senior counsel for the second respondent submitted that principles of natural justice were duly complied with. By referring to the inquiry report, learned senior counsel submitted that it is recorded therein that the petitioner was provided a reasonable opportunity and that the petitioner participated in proceedings along with his assistant, Mr.G.Arumugam. She also pointed out that an opportunity was provided to the petitioner to adduce evidence, including oral __________Page 4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21265 of 2012evidence, to defend himself against the charges. She further submitted that all amounts due and payable to the petitioner were paid to him by relying upon a communication dated 20.02.2024 from the second respondent.5. Since principles of natural justice were duly complied with, learned senior counsel submitted that no case has been made out for interference either with the order of the disciplinary authority or with the order in the revision petition.6. Learned counsel for the first respondent pointed out that the petitioner was held liable because the petitioner had sanctioned the renewal of loans without exercising due diligence. In this connection, she referred to and relied upon the order passed in the revision petition pertaining to W.P.No.21266 of 2012.7. In all these three writ petitions, the charge framed against the petitioner is identical. By way of illustration, the charge framed under charge __________Page 5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21265 of 2012memo dated 16.02.2007 in W.P.No.21265 of 2012 is set out below:“jpU/b$/ Kdpuh$%Y 14/9/05 Kjy; 4/1/06 tiu thzpak;gho ruf fs nkyhsuhf gzpg[hpe;jnghJ. ,tUila fl;Lg;ghl;oypUe;j nf.brl;oag;gD}h; bjhlf;f ntshz;ikf; Tl;Lwt[ t';fpapy; fld; kw;Wk; ,ju fld;fs; tH';fpajpy; eilbgw;w KiwnfLfisf; fz;L gpoj;J mwpf;if rkh;g;gpf;fj; jtwpaikf;fhf ,th; kPJ fPH;f;fz;l Fw;wr;rhl;L Rkj;jg;gLfpwJ/@,th; jd; flik kw;Wk; bghWg;[gfspypUe;J jtwp. nf/brl;oag;gD}h; bjhlf;f ntshz;ikf; Tl;Lwt[ t';fpapy; eilbgw;Ws;s KiwnfLfs; kw;Wk; ifahly;fisf; fz;L gpoj;J mwpf;if rkh;g;gpj;Jj; jtwpajd; KPyk; bjhlf;f t';fpapd; epjpia CHpah;fs; ifahly; bra;af; fhuzkhf ,Ue;Js;snjhL ika t';fpapd; epjpiaa[k; ghJfhf;fj; jtwpa[s;shh;/”In the inquiry report pertaining to this charge, it is recorded as under:“,t;t[j;jutpw;fpz';f. jpU/b$/ Kdpuh$%Y kPjhd Fw;wr;rhl;Lf;fs; bjhlh;ghd cs;sPl;L tprhuizia ehd; 14.6.2008k; njjpapy;. ntY}h; khtl;l kj;jpa Tl;Lwt[ t';fpapd; thzpak;gho fpis mYtyfj;jpy; nkw;bfhz;nld;/ ,e;j tprhuiz eltof;ifapy. ntY}h; khtl;l kj;jpa Tl;Lwt[ t';fpapd; epUthfj;jug;g[ gpujpepjpahf. mt;t';fpapd; jiyik mYtyfj;jpy; gzpahw;Wk; jpU. v!;/kzp. nkyhsh;(gzpf;FG) fye;J bfhz;lhh;/ Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;l mYtyh; jpU/b$/ Kdpuh$%Yt[k;. mtUila cjtpahsuhd jpU.Ip/MWKfk; vd;gtUk; fye;J bfhz;lhh;/ Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;l mYtyh; jd; kPjhd Fw;wr;rhl;LfSf;F jdJ kWg;g[iu tpsf;f';fis bjhptpf;f njitahd midj;J tha;g;g[f;fisa[k; mtUf;F __________Page 6 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21265 of 2012mspf;Fk; bghUl;L. MtuJ jug;g[ Mtz kw;Wk; egh; rhl;rpa';fis tprhuiz mYtyhpd; Kd;ghf jhf;fy; bra;at[k; M$h; gLj;jt[k; Fw;wr;rhl;L bjhlh;g[ila eph;thfj;jug;g[ Mtz';fis ghprPyid bra;at[k;. epUthfj;jug;g[ rhl;rpa';fis FWf;F tprhuiz bra;at[k;. jdf;F ,t;tprhuizapy; cjtpl xUrfgzpahsiu epakpj;J bfhs;st[k; tha;g;gspf;fg;gl;lJ/ ,J bjhlh;ghd ,tuJ nfhhpf;iffis xU tpdhg;gotk; KPyk; tprhuiz mYtyhplk; ,th; mspj;jhh;/ (vjrhM2) ,t;thwhd tprhuiz eilKiwfspd;goa[k;. ,aw;if epajpfspd; nfhl;ghLfisg; gpd;gw;wpa[k; ,t;tprhuiz eLepiy nehf;Fld; ftdkhf elj;jp Kof;fg;bgw;wJ/ ,t;tprhuizapd; nghJ epUthfj;jug;g[ gpujpepjp jdJ thf;FK:yj;ij mspj;jhh;/ (ep/jh/rh/M)(3)/ Fw;wk; rhl;lg;gl;l mYtyUk; jdJ thf;FK:y rhl;rpaj;ij mspj;jhh;/ (vjrhM(3)/ ,t;thf;FK:y';fs; tprhuiz mYtyuhfpa vd;dhy; gjptp bra;ag;gl;L rk;gj;ejg;gl;lth;fspd; xg;g[jYk; bgwg;gl;lJ/ ”8. The above extract discloses that the petitioner participated in the proceedings before the inquiry officer and was assisted by Thiru. Arumugam. The inquiry report also discloses that the petitioner was provided an opportunity to lead evidence. The petitioner replied to the charge memo on 27.06.2007. In response to the inquiry report dated 27.09.2008, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 07.02.2009. On __________Page 7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21265 of 2012perusal of reply dated 27.06.2007, it is evident that the petitioner did not request that he be provided an opportunity to examine witnesses. Likewise, the petitioner did not state in explanation dated 07.02.2009 that he was prejudiced by being denied the opportunity to examine witnesses. 9. The by-laws of the Vellore District Central Co-operative Bank have been placed on record. By-law 19 appears to specify the penalties that may be imposed pursuant to disciplinary proceedings. By-law 21 deals with the imposition of penalty and the procedure relating thereto. In relevant part, it reads as under:“21. IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES(1) (a) No penalty shall be impose don any employee unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of making any representation that he may desire to make and such representation, if any, shall be taken into consideration before orders are passed. (b) No major penalty specified in Special bylaw No.19 shall be imposed on any employee, unless a domestic inquiry is conducted and the employee concerned has been afforded an __________Page 8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21265 of 2012opportunity to defend himself:....(4) The procedure for imposing any of the penalties specified in By-law 19 shall be as follows: .... 4 (d) The disciplinary authority shall order for a domestic inquiry, appoint an Inquiry Officer and nominate the Presenting Officer. The disciplinary authority himself shall not be the inquiry officer. The time limit for completing the domestic inquiry and submission of the inquiry report shall be specified in the order appointing the inquiry officer. The inquiry shall be conducted on the basis of principles of natural justice. The employee charged shall be given an opportunity to be present during the course of examination of witnesses and to cross examine the witnesses. The inquiry officer shall prepare a report, which shall contain sufficient record of evidence, if any, and statement of the findings and grounds thereof; but shall not suggest the penalty to be imposed or any recommendation in this behalf.”__________Page 9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21265 of 201210. The above by-law discloses that a reasonable opportunity should be provided to the employee concerned to defend himself, especially if a major penalty is to be imposed. The inquiry report indicates that a reasonable opportunity was provided to the petitioner. Clause (d) of by-law – 21 further provides that the employee shall be provided an opportunity to be present when witnesses are examined and to cross examine witnesses of the department. In this case, the inquiry report discloses that the petitioner was provided an opportunity to lead evidence, including oral evidence, but did not avail of such opportunity. As stated earlier, the petitioner also did not request for an opportunity to examine witnesses either in the reply dated 24.12.2008 to the charge memo or complain that this prejudiced him in the explanation dated 07.03.2009 in response to the inquiry report. In these circumstances, the objection raised by the petitioner on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice cannot be countenanced.11. The other ground on which the petitioner impugned the order of punishment was that he was not in employment during the relevant period. In the order dated 15.10.2009 in the revision petition forming the subject of __________Page 10 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21265 of 2012W.P.No.21266 of 2012, it is recorded, in relevant part, as under:“,tuJ gzpf;fhyj;jpy; eph;zapf;fg;gl;l flik kw;Wk; bghWg;g[fspd;go bray;glhky; kWepjp nfhUk; gotk; 4y; ifbahg;gk; bra;J fld; gl;Lthlhtpid Kiwnflhf mDkjpj;Js;sjd; K:yk; ,t;t';fpapy; U:/6/62 ,yl;rk; Kiwnflhd fld;fs; tH';fg;gl fhuzkhf ,Ue;Js;shh;/”Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reference therein is to the sanctioning of renewal of loans previously sanctioned and that the petitioner cannot be held responsible in respect thereof. This contention is untenable because it cannot be said that a Field Manager sanctioning the renewal of a loan may do so without independently verifying whether the borrower is entitled to credit.12. As regards the conclusions on the charges framed against the petitioner, it is pertinent to refer to the operative portion of the orders in the revision proceedings. By way of illustration, the operative portion of the order dated 15.10.2009 in W.P.No.21265 of 2012 is set out below:“;mftprhuiz mwpf;ifapy;. ,th; kPJ rhl;lg;gl;l Fw;wr;rhl;oy; bjhlf;f ntshz;ik Tl;Lwt[ fld; r';fj;jpd; __________Page 11 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21265 of 2012epjpapid mjd; CHpah;fs; ifahly; bra;a kDjhuh; fhuzkhf ,Ue;Js;shh; vd;w gFjp Fw;wr;rhl;L kl;Lk; epU:gzkhftpy;iy vd;whYk;. kDjhuh; epjpia ghJfhg;gjpy; nghjpa bghWg;g[ld; bray;gltpy;iy vd;w Fw;wr;rhl;Lk; gFjpahf epU:gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ kDjhuh; K:d;W Kiw nkw;go r';fj;jpw;F tp$ak; bra;jpUe;Jk;. buhf;f ,Ug;g[. eifapUg;g[ ,tw;iw rhpghh;f;f jtwpajpdhy; r';fj;jpy; mjpf mst[ epjpapHg;g[ Vw;gl kDjhuh; fhuzkhf ,Ue;Js;shh; vd;w t';fpapd; epiyg;ghl;il Vw;Wf;bfhz;L t';fp eph;thfj;jhy; tH';fg;gl;l jz;lidia cWjp bra;J ,e;j rPuha;t[ kD js;Sgo bra;J cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.”From the above extract, it is clear that the portion of the charge relating to the petitioner's involvement in misappropriation was held to be not proved, whereas the portion of the charge relating to the failure to perform duties with diligence and reasonable care has been held to be proved. In those circumstances, the punishment of withholding one increment for one year was imposed in respect of each of the three charges assailed in these writ petitions.13. On examining the relevant orders of the second respondent and the first respondent, it cannot be concluded that these orders were issued on __________Page 12 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21265 of 2012the basis of no evidence or completely irrelevant evidence. In fine, it cannot be said that the orders are vitiated by perversity. It should be borne in mind that reappraisal of evidence cannot be undertaken in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, as regards punishment, no interference is called for unless the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate or unconscionable. Since the impugned orders do not fall within the above criteria for interference, no interference is warranted. Hence, these writ petitions are dismissed without any order as to costs.19.12.2024Index : Yes/NoInternet : Yes/NoNeutral Citation : Yes/Nokal__________Page 13 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.21265 of 2012SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J.kal To1. The Joint Registrar ofCo-operative Societies, Vellore Region, Vellore District.2. The Special Officer,Vellore District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd.Vellore – 1.W.P.Nos.21265, 21266 & 21267 of 201219.12.2024__________Page 14 of 14