High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 21.11.2007 CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMW.P.NOs.2179 to 2181 and 8300 to 8302 of 2003andW.P.M.P.NOs.22612, 22613 of 2003, 10199 to 10201 of 2005 and 17577 to 17579 of 2006B.Mathulingam.. Petitioner in W.P.No.2179/2003P.Sankaralingam.. Petitioner in W.P.No.2180/2003Prabhu.. Petitioner in W.P.No.2181 of 2003K.R.Ravi.. Petitioner in W.P.No.8300 of 2003K.R.Manikandan.. Petitioner in W.P.No.8301 of 2003S.Rajakani.. Petitioner in W.P.No.8302 of 2003Vs.1.The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Uthagamandalam, Nilgiris.2.The Special Officer, The Nilgiris District Plantation Workers Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., No.J.188 R.Raman Nair Buildings, Rokeby, Coonoor-643 101... Respondents in all the petitions These writ petitions have been preferred under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India, the first three petitions are filedpraying for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for theentire records relating to the impugned order in Tha.The4/2002/Sa.Pa. dt.24.12.2002 passed by the first respondent and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ consequential order passed by the second respondent in hisproceedings dated 30.12.2002 and to quash the same and the otherthree petitions are filed praying for the issue of a writ ofcertiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to theorder in Tha.Thi.4/2002/Sa.Pa, dated 24.12.2002 of the firstrespondent reverting the petitioners from the post of Clerk to thepost of Jewel Appraiser and attempting to recover a sum ofRs.53091.30 in WP.No.8300/2003 and a sum of Rs.8417/- inWP.No.8301/2003 and a sum of Rs.72960.30 in WP.No.8302/2003 paidtowards salary for holding the post of Clerk and to quash the sameand consequently, to direct the respondents to continue thepetitioners as Clerks. For Petitioners : Mr.Suresh Viswanath in WP Nos.2179 to 2181 of 2003 Mr.D.Hariparanthaman in WP Nos.8300 to 8302 of 2003For Respondents : Mr.S.Gopinathan, AGP for R1 Mr.S.V.Duraisolaimalai for R2 - - - - COMMON ORDERThis order shall govern all the above writ petitions,whereby all the petitioners challenge an order of the firstrespondent made in Tha.The 4/2002/Sa.Pa., dated 24.12.2002.2.The affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions areperused. The court heard the learned counsel on either side. 3.Concededly, the petitioners in all these petitions, who wereworking as Jewel Appraisers in different branches of Co-operativeSociety, Nilgiris District, were promoted as Clerks in the year1999 by the President of the Society. After the resolution of theBoard, the Special Officer was appointed. He brought to the noticeof the Joint Registrar that these promotions were illegal. On thestrength of the report, an inspection was made by the JointRegistrar and following the inspection made by the Joint Registrar,he issued a direction to the respondents to take necessary steps torecover the excess salary paid to the petitioners, since in hisopinion, all the promotions were irregular and illegal.Accordingly, the first respondent has passed an order that therespective sums have got to be recovered from the petitioners,alleging that they were drawing salary in excess by way of anirregular and illegal promotions. The Special Officer issued a showcause notice on 3.5.2002 for the recovery of the excess amount andalso asked as to why they should not be reverted from the post ofClerk to the original post of Jewel Appraiser. The petitioners haveput forth their explanations on 13.5.2002. In the meanwhile, thefirst respondent has passed the final order under Section 87 of theTamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 on 24.12.2002 and underthese circumstances, these writ petitions have arisen before thiscourt. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.On the earlier occasion, one sort of petitioners filed writpetitions, where they were advised to file revisions before thecompetent authority. When the revisions were filed, they werereturned, since it was a fit case where an appeal should have beenpreferred and under these circumstances, the cases have arisenbefore this court. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit thatthe order passed by the first respondent was without jurisdiction;that admittedly, all the petitioners were working as JewelAppraisers and they were promoted by the Board as clerical staff;that they were working as Clerks and they were drawing salary; thatthe Special Officer, who is also vested with equal powers that ofthe Board, cannot complain or reopen the proceedings or pursuant towhich, proceedings could not be initiated; that in order to proceedagainst them under Section 87 of the Act, there should have beenmisappropriation or fraudulent activities, but nothing is noticed;that apart from that the first part of the order was for recovery,which according to the Department was drawn in excess and the laterpart is as to the reversion; that insofar as the first part isconcerned, namely recovery, an appeal would lie; that insofar asthe second part, the first respondent has no jurisdiction to passan order and under these circumstances, the entire proceedings havegot to be quashed. 6.The court heard the learned counsel for the respondents onthe above contentions.7.After doing so and looking into the materials available, thecourt is of the considered opinion that all the writ petitions havegot to be dismissed. In the instant case, it is not in controversythat these petitioners were originally appointed as JewelAppraisers in different branches of Co-operative society. They werepromoted as clerical staff. A report was given by the SpecialOfficer to the Joint Registrar that their promotions were irregularand illegal. According to the Department, an inspection was madeby the Joint Registrar, who has found to be so and thus,proceedings were initiated and the order under challenge came to bepassed, where there were two parts. The first part speaks about therecovery, which according to the department is the excess paymentand the second part is as to why they should not be demoted fromthe post of clerks to the original post of Jewel Appraisers. Thus,it would be quite clear that so far as the first part is concerned,there is an appeal, which is provided under Section 152 of the Act.So far as the second part is concerned, a revision has got to bepreferred. 8.On the earlier occasion, when a writ petition was filedbefore this court, permission was granted to file a revision beforethe revisional authority, but the revisions were returned,directing them to take proper steps. Therefore, once there was apermission given and the revision would also lie and so far as thefirst part of the order is concerned, an appeal alone would lie, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ these petitioners should have taken proper steps before theappropriate forum, but without knocking the doors of theappropriate forum, they have brought forth these writ petitionsbefore this court. Now, it is also brought to the notice of thecourt by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the writpetitions have been filed within time and under thesecircumstances, the question of limitation would lie when the otherpetitions are filed. 9.Under these circumstances, the petitioners are given libertyto prefer an appeal or revision as the case may be. There is noimpediment for the petitioners to raise all the contentions, bothfactually and legally, before the respective Authorities at thetime of enquiry of appeal or revision, as the case may be. Takinginto consideration the pendency of the writ petitions before thiscourt, petitioners are permitted to prefer an appeal or revision,as the case may be, within a period of three weeks herefrom.Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are alsodismissed.VvkSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Uthagamandalam, Nilgiris.2.The Special Officer, The Nilgiris District Plantation Workers Co-operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., No.J.188 R.Raman Nair Buildings, Rokeby, Coonoor-643 101.•1 cc to Mr. D. Hariparanthaman, Advocate SR No. 69083•1 cc to the Government Pleader SR No.69029•1 cc to Mr. M. Suresh Viswanath, Advocate SR No.68838•1 cc to Mr. S. V. Durai Salaimalai, Advocate SR No. 69085W.P.NOs.2179 to 2181 and 8300 to 8302 of 2003AKR(CO)SR/22.11.2007