Radha v. The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies Dharmapuri Region Dharmapuri2.K.K.349, Dharmapuri District CentralCooperative

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 8-10-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.No.6249 of 2007andMP No.1 of 2007 Radha.. Petitionervs1.The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies Dharmapuri Region Dharmapuri2.K.K.349, Dharmapuri District CentralCooperative Bank Limited Rep. By its Special Officer Dharmapuri.. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing therespondents to pay a sum of Rs.6,46,800/- to the petitionertowards the death cum retirement benefits of her husband employedas Manager in the 2nd respondent bank without conducting anyenquiry in terms of the show cause notice dated 28.7.1999 and30.7.2001.For Petitioner: Mr.G.EthirajuluFor Respondents: Mr.V.Arun Additional GovernmentPleader for R1 Mr.M.S.Palaniswmy for R2ORDERSeeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to pay asum of Rs.6,46,800/- to the petitioner towards the death cumretirement benefits of her husband employed as Manager in the 2ndrespondent bank without conducting any enquiry in terms of theshow cause notices dated 28.7.1999 and 30.7.2001, the petitioner, the wife of an employee in K.K. 349, Dharmapuri District CentralCooperative Bank Limited, has brought forth this writ petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The affidavit in support of the petition is perused. TheCourt heard the learned Counsel on either side.

The case of the petitioner in short is that her husbandS.Arokiasamy, was originally appointed as Attender Manager in Reddihalli Cooperative Society; that he worked at differentbranches; that he was transferred to Papparapatti Branch, Dharmapuri District, as Branch Manager; that he died on 8.2.1999,leaving behind him the petitioner herein and his children as hisheirs; that the petitioner, after the death of her husband, wasgiven a few retirement benefits such as encashment of leave salaryand group service insurance scheme amount; but, the retirementbenefits such as provident fund, gratuity and other emolumentswere not sanctioned to her; that the petitioner made a claim inthat regard; that while the matter stood thus, the secondrespondent issued a show cause notice dated 28.7.1999, statingthat when her husband was in service, he sanctioned several jewelloans above the sanctioned limit and thereby, caused monetary lossto the extent of Rs.3,61,077/-; that the petitioner and herchildren were called upon to pay the amount within seven days; that the petitioner gave a reply on 23.8.1999; that the matter waskept pending without any enquiry; that while the matter stoodthus, the petitioner filed WP No.19486 of 1999 on the file of this Court seeking a certiorarified mandamus to quash the notice dated28.7.1999, wherein an order came to be passed on 10.12.1999 bythis Court issuing a direction to the petitioner to put forth hercase before the authority concerned; that following the same, tworepresentations were made by her on 20.12.1999 and 7.1.2000; but, no action was taken; that while so, she filed another WP No.6641of 2000 seeking a direction wherein it was observed that she couldapproach the authority below; but, nothing has happened; thatwhile the matter stood thus, a second notice has been served uponher on 30.7.2001 stating that the petitioner's husband caused amonetary loss to the tune of Rs.7,99,194/- including the interestthereon, and therefore, they are liable to pay the same; thatthough a claim was made, the retirement benefits was not settled; and that under the circumstances, she has approached this Courtwith this writ petition.

Advancing the case on behalf of the petitioner, the learnedCounsel would submit that in the instant case, the husband of thepetitioner Mr.Arokiasamy was employed till his death on 8.2.1999;that during his life time, not even one memo was served on himalleging that there was any monetary loss to the Bank when hesanctioned jewel loan exceeding the limit; that only after 6months therefrom, the first show cause notice was given, and areply was also submitted; but, no enquiry was made; that now, itis a matter of surprise to note that despite the orders of the Court in two writ petitions directing the authorities to decidethe matter, they have not done so; that now, the second notice hasalso been given on 30.7.2001 as if the monetary loss hadoccasioned to the bank to the tune of Rs.7,99,194/-; and thatunder the circumstances, she has approached this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Added further the learned Counsel that even a reading ofthe first show cause notice served upon her stating that there wasa loss that occasioned to the bank, and it was caused by thepetitioner's husband amounting to Rs.3,61,077/-, would indicatethat no particulars worth-mentioning were given; that under thecircumstances, the show cause notice itself is nothing but a makebelief affair; that apart from that, all the promissory notesexecuted by the respective persons, who have obtained loans, werevery well available; that if any excess amount was actuallyobtained by them, there was all possibility for the bank toproceed against them, but not done so; that all these proceedingswere initiated without any basis whatsoever; that the petitionerand her children who are nothing to do and who have no knowledgeabout the loan transaction, are now called upon to pay; that theyare not liable to pay on the grounds that not even one notice wasserved upon the employee during his life time; that the show causenotice does not speak about any particulars which could bereplied; that under the circumstances, it is not a fit case wherethe authority could make a claim, and hence, a direction should begiven to the respondents to settle the retirement benefits.

Contrary to the above contentions, the learned Counsel forthe second respondent bank would submit that it is true thatduring the life time of Arokiasamy, no show cause notice wasissued; that since it was detected only thereafter, the first showcause notice was issued on 28.7.1999 giving all particulars thathe has sanctioned the loan exceeding the limit, and thus, therewas a loss that occasioned to the bank, to the tune ofRs.3,61,077/-; that though the said employee died, the bank haspowers to proceed against his legal representatives to make goodthe loss; that an enquiry was conducted; that the enquiry wouldreveal that they were actually liable to pay Rs.7,99,194/-; thatfollowing the enquiry, the present notice has been issued; thatfurther, the petitioner, who has no case and who is liable to makethe payment, has come forward with two writ petitions; that boththe writ petitions in WP Nos.19486 of 1999 and 6641 of 2000 werealso dismissed by this Court directing her to put forth thesubmissions before the authority below; but, they have not doneso; that now, orders have been passed that they are liable to pay; that apart from that, A.R.C. proceedings is also pending, andhence, the writ petition has got to be dismissed.

The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissionsmade.

This Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fitcase where the relief has got to be granted for more reasons thanone. It is not in controversy that one Arokiasamy, the husband ofthe petitioner herein, was employed in the second respondent bank. When he was working as Branch Manager in Papparapatti Branch, hedied on 8.2.1999. At the outset, it is to be mentioned thatduring his life time, not even one charge memo was given making https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ allegation that he sanctioned any one jewel loan which wasexceeding the sanctioned limit. It is also not in controversy thatthe first notice served upon the petitioner, was issued on28.7.1999 i.e., nearly about 5 or 6 months after his life time. Aperusal of the first show cause notice does not reveal necessaryparticulars which could put her on notice as to the date ofavailing of loan, the amount of sanction, how it exceeded thelimit and what was the actual loss that occasioned. On thecontrary, it would clearly speak that when those jewels wereauctioned, the amount what was brought, was not sufficient tosatisfy the loss amount and its interest, and thereby, the losshas occasioned to the bank. It is a matter of surprise to notethat how such a notice could be issued or served upon the legalrepresentatives of an employee or how they could be called upon tomake it good. If he has exceeded the sanctioned limit, it isunderstandable that he is liable to answer. But, in the instantcase, when the show cause notice is perused, it would make itclear that when the jewels which were originally pledged with thebank, were auctioned, the loss occasioned to the bank, and thatwas the said amount. This Court is of the considered opinion thatsuch a loss cannot be recovered from an employee.

Further, it is to be added that on the basis of such a showcause notice served upon the petitioner, the bank should not haveproceeded at all since this Court is of the opinion that the showcause notice itself is bad and liable to be set aside. It isquite natural that she had pleaded no knowledge. It is true thatshe has nothing to do with the employment of her husband, who wasactually the Branch Manager of Papparapatti Branch of the secondrespondent bank. Now, calling upon the petitioner to answercertain things which she had no knowledge at all, is nothing butto pass an order against her. Apart from that, the first noticedated 28.7.1999, fixes the monetary loss at Rs.3,61,077/-. It isnoticed that the second notice was issued on 30.7.2001, statingthat the monetary loss that occasioned to the bank, wasRs.7,99,194/-. How it happened is a matter of surprise. It isfurther to be pointed out that the first show cause notice doesnot speak about any particulars necessary or requisite to a personand that too, to a person who had no knowledge about the excess ofthe amount sanctioned. Further, nowhere in the show cause noticeit is stated that the monetary loss of Rs.3,61,077/- occasionedbecause of the sanction of the loan exceeding the limit. But, onthe contrary, it had occasioned due to the loss that was noticedat the time of the auction of the jewels pledged with the bank. Under the circumstances, though this writ petition is for a writof mandamus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the showcause notice itself has got to be set aside and the followingproceedings have got to be necessarily set aside. Accordingly, they are set aside.