N.P.Rathinasamy v. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Common Cadre Authority, Erode Region, Erode

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 11.12.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.NO.18867 of 2009N.P.Rathinasamy.. Petitioner Vs.1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Common Cadre Authority, Erode Region, Erode.2.The Special Officer, K.177, Ketticheviyur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd. Ketticheviyur, Gobi Taluk, Erode District... RespondentsThis writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issue of a writ ofcertiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to theorder passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.5642/2006 A1 dated21.8.2009 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents tosettle the back wages, retirement and other attendant benefitspayable to the petitioner.For Petitioner : Mr.S.KamadevanFor Respondents : Mr.R.Neelakantan, GA for R1 Mr.M.Dhandapani, Spl.G.P. for R2ORDERHeard both sides. The petitioner, who was formerly aSecretary of the second respondent Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank (for short PACB), has come forward to challenge theorder passed by the first respondent, dated 21.8.2009. In the saidorder, the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from31.1.2003. It was also stated that since the petitioner had reachedthe age of superannuation by 30.6.2005, he will not be granted anyterminal benefits. It was further stated that if the petitioner sochoses, he can file a petition before the Registrar. 2.The contention raised by the petitioner was that as perG.O.Ms.No.55, Co-operation, Food and Consumer ProtectionDepartment, dated 24.3.2000, the Secretaries of PACBs were broughtunder a Common Cadre and the first respondent alone is the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ competent authority to deal with them. Hence the proceedingsinitiated by the second respondent by a charge memo, dated24.8.2002 is not valid. It is only the second respondent who hadordered for the domestic enquiry, issued a second show cause noticeand also issued a final order, dated 11.2.2003. Hence theproceedings are not valid.3.It is against this order, the petitioner preferred a writpetition being W.P.No.2208 of 2005. The said writ petition came tobe disposed of by a final order, dated 21.4.2006. In that order, inparagraphs 3 and 4, this court observed as follows:"3.The learned counsel for thepetitioner submitted that since the petitioneris a common service cadre employee, the SpecialOfficer/third respondent herein has nojurisdiction to pass the impugned order andonly the cadre constituted by G.O.Ms.No.55 Co-operation Food and Consumer ProtectionDepartment dated 24.3.2000, wherein clause 30says who is the competent authority to imposepunishment, can pass such orders. According tothe learned counsel for the petitioner, theJoint Registrar of Co-operative Societies ofthat region is the competent authority andtherefore the impugned order passed by theSpecial Officer viz., the third respondent isunsustainable.4.The learned counsel for the petitioneras well as the learned counsel for the thirdrespondent submits that the matter in issue iscovered by the judgment of this Court inW.P.No.21939 of 2000 dated 27.4.2001(K.R.Sivaprakasam V. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Perambalur and twoothers), which order has been followed in asubsequent decision of this Court inW.P.No.8447 of 2001 dated 15.09.2003(S.Kalamegam v. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Erode and two others). Inthe above said writ petitions, the orderspassed by the Special Officer were set asidewith liberty to the respondents to proceedfurther in accordance with law and afterfollowing the procedures prescribed as per theterms of new regulations."(Emphasis added)4.Subsequently, a writ appeal was filed by the secondrespondent Co-operative Bank before a Division bench in W.A.No.975of 2006. The Division Bench presided by Elipe Dharma Rao, J., byjudgment, dated 25.1.2008, dismissed the writ appeal and held asfollows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "2.The learned single Judge has rightlypassed the order on the basis of the submissionsmade by the learned counsel for the writpetitioner as well as the learned counsel for thethird respondent in the writ petition viz., theappellant herein, following the covered decisionof learned single Judge of this Court made inW.P.No.21939 of 2000 dated 27.4.2001 andW.P.No.8447 of 2001 dated 15.9.2003. Therefore,we see no reason to entertain the writ appeal.The writ appeal fails and is dismissedaccordingly. No order as to costs. Consequently,connected M.P. is closed."5.Once again, a review application was filed by theCooperative Bank in Review application No.8 of 2009. The saidreview application came to be rejected by an order, dated 6.4.2009.It is thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed by the firstrespondent. 6.The contention that he had reached the age ofsuperannuation and therefore, no further proceedings can beinitiated cannot be sustained by this court. The petitioner whilein service had challenged the order passed by the second respondentand had succeeded in setting aside the same. While agreeing withthe petitioner, an order of remand was made by this court which wasalso approved by the Division Bench. Therefore, he cannot comparehimself with a person, who was allowed to retire on reaching theage of superannuation. It is well open to this court to remand thematter either for a fresh disposal or for limited remit order. Itis under the premise that no person can be allowed to escape fromthe hands of law without any justification. 7.The petitioner's case is squarely covered by the order ofremand made by this Court. Therefore, the contention of thepetitioner cannot be accepted. Further, there is no impediment tocontinue the enquiry when there is a direction from this court orwhen a power is reserved for continuing the action by the Society.Even though in the present case G.O.Ms.No.55 has been revoked, by asubsequent order even on repeal of the G.O.No.55 notifying thecommon cadre, the existing action initiated by the Common CadreAuthority was directed to be continued as if there was no repealingorder. 8.Another division bench presided by Prabha Sridevan, J.relating to The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kilpauk,Chennai Vs. G.Manoharan in W.A.Nos.256 and 257 of 2008, dated21.10.2009 dealt with a similar issue. In paragraph 33 it was heldas follows:"33.From the records produced in thiscase, the following facts are obvious:-(a)The activities of the firstrespondent had caused a great deal of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ consternation among the authorities and theywere forced to transfer him from the placewhere, according to them, he was causing a lotof damage.(b)The disciplinary proceedings had beenactually initiated before his age ofsuperannuation, since the first charge memo isdated 6.6.2003, whereas his age ofsuperannuation is 31.6.2003.(c)He had also given a reply to thecharge memo dated 6.6.2003, but had not chosento reveal the fact of the issuance of thisearlier charge memo in his writ affidavit.(d)No orders had been passed permittinghim to retire; on the contrary, he was suspendedon the eve of his attaining the age ofsuperannuation.(e)The Supreme Court has held that evenif a person had retired, if it is proved that hehad caused loss to the establishment, thenproceedings can be initiated to recover theamount of loss from him. (f)Even if a person has attained the ageof superannuation, it is possible to dismisshim, in which event, he will not be entitled tohis terminal dues vide (2007) 9 S.C.C. 15(supra).(g)In any event, Section 87 of the Actgives the power to proceed against even a pastemployee for recovery and restoration of thefinancial loss caused to the Society."9.In the light of the above, the contentions raised by thepetitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court. Hence the writpetition will stand dismissed. No costs. However, as directed bythe first respondent, it is open to the petitioner to file anappropriate review application before the revisional authority andchallenge the merits of his case. The dismissal of the writpetition will not disentitle the petitioner from availing suchremedy. Sd/-Asst. Registrar//true copy//Sub Asst.Registrarvvk https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Common Cadre Authority, Erode Region, Erode.2.The Special Officer, K.177, Ketticheviyur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Ltd. Ketticheviyur, Gobi Taluk, Erode District.1 cc to Mr.S.Kamadevan, Advocate, Sr.No.67853 ORDER IN W.P.NO.18867 of 2009GGK {CO}TP/17.2.2010.