High Court · 2025

W.P.No.30972 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASORDER RESERVED ON : 27.02.2025 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 21.03.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE N.MALAW.P.No. 30972 of 2022 and WMP.No.30363 of 2022K.Parvathi...PetitionerVs.1. The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies,Perambalur Region,Perambalur.2.The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies,Perambalur Circle,perambalur.3.The President,R.1348, Sillakkudi Primary AgriculturalCo-operative credit Society,Sillakkudi,Methal Post,Perambalur District....Respondents1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30972 of 2022Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relates to the impugned order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the 1st respondent vide Na.Ka.No.2649/2020/SaPa and quash the same as illegal, un authority of law and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to service with all benefits.For Petitioner : Mr.A.V.RajaFor Respondents: Mr.S.Ravikumar, Special Government Pleader for RR1 & 2 No appearance for R3ORDERThe writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 21.09.2022 passed by the 1st respondent, confirming the order of the 3rd respondent dismissing the petitioner from service and for consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all other benefits.2. The petitioner was working as a saleswoman in a fair price shop at Jameen Athur in Perambalur District, she was transferred to Thimmor fair price 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30972 of 2022shop. Whileso, there a surprise check by the flying squad in the petitioner's fair price shop. The flying squad found that certain irregularities were committed by the petitioner which resulted in loss to the society. Consequent thereof, the petitioner was suspended from service and later a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 28.12.2012 and she submitted her reply on 14.03.2013. A departmental enquiry was conducted wherein the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend her case. On conclusion of enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report finding that the petitioner was guilty of the two charges framed against her. A show cause notice along with the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner, she submitted her explanation, being not satisfied with the same, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the petitioner preferred a revision under section 153 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. The revisional authority finding that the petitioner was not paid the subsistence allowance, during the enquiry proceedings, set aside the dismissal order, on the said procedural lapse and remanded the matter from the stage the lapse 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30972 of 2022occurred, for passing fresh orders. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner was reinstated. Thereafter the petitioner was kept under suspension again and a show cause notice was issued to her calling for her fresh explanation to the enquiry report, along with a copy of the same. The petitioner submitted her reply but the 3rd respondent not satisfied with the same, passed the dismissal order. The petitioner challenged both the suspension order as well as the dismissal order by way of revision to the 1st respondent under section 153 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. The 1st respondent on an appreciation of the entire materials confirmed the dismissal order. Challenging the same the petitioner filed the above writ petition.3. The respondents 1 to 3 filed counter denying the petitioner's averments in the writ petition and justifying the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the earlier round, the revisional authority set aside the dismissal order and remanded the 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30972 of 2022same for fresh consideration from the stage the procedural lapse occurred. According to the learned counsel as the procedural lapse related to non-payment of subsistence allowance pending enquiry proceedings, the 3rd respondent ought to have conducted a denovo enquiry on remand by the revisional authority. As the dismissal order as confirmed by the impugned order was passed without conducting a fresh enquiry, the same was legally invalid and unsustainable.5. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that in the earlier round, the revisional authority found that there was a procedural lapse in not paying the subsistence allowance and therefore set aside the dismissal order. The respondents in the earlier round clearly established before the revisional authority that the failure to pay the subsistence allowance was only due to the fault of the petitioner in not submitting the certificate of non-employment every month and also for leaving the headquarters. There was no issue regarding the validity of the findings of the enquiry officer on the proof of the charges against the petitioner. The learned counsel therefore submitted 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30972 of 2022that there was no necessity to conduct fresh enquiry and the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings from the stage of payment of subsistence allowance was valid.5. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the petitioner in her reply to the charge-memo had clearly admitted her misconduct and also paid the loss occurred to the 3rd respondent society due to the irregularities committed by her and therefore under the said facts and circumstances, fresh enquiry would have been an empty formality. The learned counsel therefore submitted that there were no merits in the writ petition and the same deserved to be dismissed.6. I heard both learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record.6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30972 of 20227. The crux of the matter is whether a denovo enquiry was required to be conducted in pursuance of the order passed by the revisional authority on 30.11.2016, in the earlier round of litigation. The operative part of the aforesaid order reads as follows:@jw;fhypfg; gzpePf;ff; fhyj;jpw;F gpiHg;g{jpak; tH';fhky;. Cs;tprhuiz elj;jpa[k;. tpsf;fk; bgw;Wk;. xG';F eltof;ifia Kot[ bra;J kDjhuiu epue;jug; gzpePf;fk; bra;J vjph;kDjhuh; r';fk; Mizapl;Ls;sJ/xG';F eltof;ifapy; filgpof;f ntz;oa Kiwia (Procedure) vjph;kDjhuh; r';fk; filgpof;fhknyna xG';F eltof;if Kot[ bra;J kDjhuiu epue;jug;gzpePf;fk; bra;J. mt;bthG';F eltof;ifapd; eilKiwapy; vjph;kDjhuuhy; @tG@ Vw;gLj;jg;gl;Ls;sJ Maptpy; fz;lwpag;gl;Ls;sJ/vdnt. xG';F eltof;ifapy; gpd;gw;w ntz;oa eilKiwf;Fk; (Procedure), ,aw;if epajpf;Fk; Kuzhf kDjhuiu epue;jug;gzpePf;fk; bra;J tH';fg;gl;l vjph;kDjhuhpd; 12/12/2015 Mk; njjpa bray;Kiw Mizia ,r;rPuha;t[ kd;wk; uj;J bra;a Kot[ bra;J mt;thnw MizapLfpwJ/nkYk;. gpiHg;g{jpak; tH';fg;glhky; cs;s 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30972 of 2022fhyj;jpw;F kDjhuUf;F gpiHg;g{jpak; tH';fp tG Vw;gl;l ,lj;jpypUe;J kPz;Lk; xG';F eltof;ifiaj; bjhlh;e;J kDjhuUf;F nghjpa tha;g;gspj;J g[jpajhf (Fresh) ,Wjp Miziag; gpwg;gpf;FkhWk; vjph;kDjhuUf;F ,r;rPuha;t[ kd;wk; MizapLfpwJ/@A bare reading of the order shows that the procedural lapse contemplated therein was non-payment of subsistence allowance. The respondent took a categorical stand therein that the lapse occurred because of the failure of the petitioner in not submitting the certificate of non-employment every month and for leaving the headquarters. A reading of the entire order also establishes that no issue was raised at the time of arguments, regarding the findings of the enquiry officer. It is seen that the findings of the enquiry officer were not at all an issue in the earlier revision proceedings, only because the petitioner in her reply to the show cause notice to the charge-memo, clearly admitted her mistake, albeit on the ground of ill health, regretted for the lapses committed by her and also remitted the loss caused to the society. As the petitioner was bound 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30972 of 2022by her reply statement to the show cause notice to the charge-memo and as the enquiry officer rendered findings on the basis of the petitioner's own reply statement, in my considered view there is no necessity to conduct a denovo enquiry. It is pertinent to mention here that in the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner in her oral evidence tried to retract from her statement made in the reply, by stating that she was on leave on the day of the surprise check by the flying squad. The enquiry officer considering the inconsistent stand taken by the petitioner, that too without any proof, found that the charges were proved. Under the said circumstances, I am of the view that the respondents contention that a denovo enquiry would be a futile exercise is justified and reasonable.8. It is to be seen if for mere non-payment of subsistence allowance denova enquiry is mandated. No hard and fast rule can be laid in this regard. The conduct of the petitioner would play a vital role in determining the same. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally for misconduct committed by her as a saleswoman in a fair price shop. The petitioner admitted the misconduct, 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30972 of 2022albeit, on health grounds and also remitted the loss to the 3rd respondent society. In the present case admittedly the petitioner did not submit the certificate of non-employment every month and left the headquarters. The petitioner was at fault for non-payment of subsistence allowance. I therefore find the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order confirming the dismissal order of the 3rd respondent is invalid as no fresh enquiry was conducted as per the earlier order of remand dated 30.11.2016 is not tenable and hence rejected.In my view no sympathy should be shown to the petitioner as she diverted materials meant for distribution to the poor and poverty stricken public. The loss may be meagre, but the misconduct is deplorable. I find no merits in the writ petition and hence the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected WMP is closed.21.03.2025dsn/ah10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30972 of 2022Index:Yes/NoSpeaking Order: Yes/NoNeutral Citation:Yes/NoTo1. The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies,Perambalur Region,Perambalur.2.The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies,Perambalur Circle,perambalur.3.The President,R.1348, Sillakkudi Primary AgriculturalCo-operative credit Society,Sillakkudi,Methal Post,Perambalur District.N.MALA,J.11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30972 of 2022dsnPre-Delivery Order in W.P.No.30972 of 2022Order Pronounced on 21.03.202512/12