ANDWP.MP.NOS.1 AND 2 OF 2007 v. The Chairman

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 31.08.2007CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE CHOCKALINGAMW.P.NO.4031 OF 2007ANDWP.MP.NOS.1 AND 2 OF 2007S.Ramamoorthy ...PetitionerVs.1.The Chairman, Common Cadre Authority/Joint Registrar of Coop Societies, Tiruvannnamalai Region, Tiruvannamalai.2. The Special officer, H.H.583. Nallavanpalayam Primary Agricultural Coop.Bank Ltd., Nallavanpalayam, Tiruvannamalai Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District. ..RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constutition of Indiapraying for the issuance of a writ of Certioarified Mandamus calling forthe entire records relating to the impugned oder passed by the Istrespondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No. 7556/2005 PA.CB dated 31.10.2006ans quash the same and consequentyly reinstate the petitioner into servicewith all backwages.For Petitioner: Mr.C.PrakasamFor Respondent No.1: Mr.I.ParanthamanAdditional Government PleaderFor Respondent No.2: Mr.D.Srinivasan ------O R D E RInvoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the petitionersought for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified mandamus to quash theproceedings of the first respondent made in No.7656/05 PACB dated31.10.2006, whereby the petitioner was terminated from service and alsofor reinstatement of the petitioner into service with all backwages. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. The Court heard the learned counsel on either side.3. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learnedcounsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointedas salesman in the second respondent bank in the year 1979, that he wasalso promoted as Clerk and subsequently as Assistant Secretary in 1992 andsubsequently he was promoted as Secretary in the second respondent bank.At the time of Audit inspection made in the year 2003-04, as per the AuditReport, certain irregularities were found in this connection and chargememo was issued for the alleged irregularities, that the petitioner hassanctioned loan to the members more than the value of land and withoutsufficient documents and also that sanctioned loan without any resolutionand have not obtained prior permission from the higher officials andprepared focus records regarding with issuing loans and misused his wife'ssavings bank account and thereby caused loss to the bank to the tune ofRs.1.16 lakhs . Charge memo was served upon the petitioner. He gavedetailed explanation, but the respondents have not considered the same andappointed domestic enquiry officer who in turn conducted enquiry and inthat enquiry, the petitioner has participated and also made a request tofurnish relevant documents enabling him to defend the case. But thedomestic officer had not furnished the same, but he has not allowed thepetitioner to go through the records, but on the other hand he acted infavour of the respondents. Under such circumstances, a written request wasmade to the first respondent that the enquiry officer should beimmediately changed, but that was not done. Further, all the charges werefound against him as a result of the said domestic enquiry and further thefirst respondent has issued the second show cause notice. But withoutgiving reasonable opportunity for submitting his explanation, the firstrespondent has passed an order of termination against him .4. Learned counsel has assailed the said impugned order oftermination on four grounds. Firstly, at the time of enquiry, despite therequest, copy of the documents were not furnished to him to put forth hisdefence, Secondly, while the enquiry officer was going in partisanattitude, the petitioner has made a representation to change the enquiryofficer, but it was not done so. Thirdly, after the report of the enquiryofficer regarding the finding that the charges were proved against thepetitioner, the second show cause notice was issued, but withoutreasonable opportunity for submitting his explanation and subsequently,termination order was passed by the first respondent. Fourthly, during thependency of the proceedings, subsistence allowance was not paid to himfrom the time of suspension . Under such circumstances, the impugned orderhas got to be quashed.5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for thepetitioner has relied on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court inC.JEYARAJAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS reported in (2006) 3 M.L.J.251. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. The Court heard the learned counsel for the respondents on theabove contentions.7. According to the learned counsel for the respondentssufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner after levelling chargesagainst him. He has filed his explanation on 15.2.2006 and he has alsoparticipated in the domestic enquiry and after the enquiry was over,recording that the charges were proved, the second show cause notice wasserved upon him. Following which, the order of termination came to bepassed. So far as subsistence allowance was concerned, it has been paid on25.8.2007 and hence the order of termination was perfectly correct and ithas got tobe sustained.8. After considering the rival submissions made, this Court is ofthe considered opinion that the order of termination has got to be quashedfor more than one reason. In the instant case, it is not in controversythat certain charges were levelled against the petitioner herein andfollowing the explanation, domestic enquiry was ordered. The firstgrievance ventilated by the petitioner that despite his representation forgiving copy of the documents, the enquiry officer has not furnished thesame and even he was not allowed to make the inspection of the document.Though he made a representation about the partisan attitude of the enquiryofficer, it was not considered at all. Apart from that, the enquiryofficer proceeded with the enquiry and recorded the finding against himwithout giving reasonable opportunity. At this juncture, it is pertinentto point out that in the instant case, subsistence allowance from the timeof suspension till the enquiry was over, has not been paid . Now thecontention put forth by the respondents that it has been paid on 25.8.2007cannot be a answer. In the instant case what is noticed by this Court isthat proceedings are culminated from the dismissal of the employee, thepetitioner herein. It is needless to point out due to the non payment ofsubsistence allowance, the petitioner has got much sufferings and also itcaused prejudice to the petitioner .Under such circumstances, thedepartmental proceedings are vitiated and the order of termination has gotto be quashed. The employee is not only entitled for reinstatement, butalso other benefits accrued thereon.9. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.Consequently, MP.Nos.1 and 2 are closed.VJYSd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Chairman, Common Cadre Authority/Joint Registrar of Coop Societies, Tiruvannnamalai Region, Tiruvannamalai.2. The Special officer, H.H.583. Nallavanpalayam Primary Agricultural Coop.Bank Ltd., Nallavanpalayam, Tiruvannamalai Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District+ One cc to Mr. D. Srinivasan, Advocate sR 54736+ One cc to Mr. C. Prakasam, Advocate sR 54622BV (co)sg 10/9/07W.P.NO.4031 OF 2007ANDM.P.NOS.1 AND 2 OF 200731.08.2007