Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 5339
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. MANIKUMAR
R. Kongaiah
Versus
The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sivagangai & Another
W.P.No.12123 of 2001
Decided on : 07-12-2009
For the Petitioner:V. Govardhan, M/s. Row & Reddy, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, P. Subramaniam, AGP, R2, Paramasivadoss, N. Umapathy, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of section 76 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, emphasizing the necessity of suspension in public interest and pending investigation into alleged misconduct.
Headnote:
Suspension - Co-operative Societies - Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act - Section 76 - Summary: The court discussed the suspension of a petitioner under section 76 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, in relation to a criminal case pending before the C.C.I.W., Sivagangai. The court highlighted the legal provisions of section 76 and its application in the case, emphasizing the necessity of suspension in public interest and pending investigation into the alleged misappropriation of bank's money. The court also referred to the Full Bench decision in K. Marappan Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, emphasizing the limitations of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the Act provides for an alternative remedy.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was placed under suspension by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sivagangai Region, under section 76 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, in relation to a criminal case pending before the C.C.I.W., Sivagangai. The petitioner challenged the suspension orders in a Writ Petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspension of the petitioner was justified under section 76 of the Act, considering the necessity in public interest and pending investigation into the alleged misappropriation of bank's money. The court also held that the Writ Petition challenging the suspension was not maintainable in law, emphasizing the statutory remedy available to the petitioner to file a revision before the competent authority under the Act.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the suspension orders under section 76 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act, the necessity of suspension in public interest, and the maintainability of the Writ Petition challenging the suspension.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation and application of section 76 of the Act, emphasizing the necessity of suspension in public interest and pending investigation into the alleged misappropriation of bank's money. The court also relied on the Full Bench decision to highlight the limitations of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the Act provides for an alternative remedy.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition challenging the suspension orders was dismissed, with the petitioner given liberty to approach the competent authority under the relevant provisions of the Act. The petitioner was directed to file a revision within a period of one month, and the revisional authority was instructed to dispose of the revision within a period of three months, with the petitioner not to be disturbed in the meanwhile.
By the impugned order dated 5. 2001, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sivagangai Region, in exercise of his powers under section 76 (1) (b) of the Tamlnadu Co-operative Societies Act has placed the petitioner under suspension, on the grounds that his retention would cause hindrance for the investigation to be conducted in respect of a criminal case in F.I.R.No.7/2000, pending before the C.C.I.W., Sivagangai. The suspension was also resorted to in public interest. Pursuant to the said order, the Special Officer of the second respondent-Society has passed an order dated 6. 2001, placing the petitioner under suspension. Both the orders are under challenge in this Writ Petition.
2. Assailing the impugned orders, Mr.V.Govardhan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that for the very same allegation of misappropriation of Banks money, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 28. 1999 and lateron, he was reinstated in service with effect from 7. 2000. He further submitted that after conducting a departmental enquiry into the above said allegation, a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was also imposed, pending disposal of the criminal case and in these circumstances, there is no need to place the petitioner under suspension once again. He also submitted that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to direct the Board to suspend the petitioner on the same set of charges. For the above said reasons, he prayed that both the orders are liable to be set aside.
3. The second respondent in his counter affidavit has submitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension by the then Board of the Chinnakannanur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank on 29. 99 as there were serious charges of misappropriation against him. On the charge memo dated 27. 2000, a domestic enquiry was held in which the enquiry officer found that the charges are proved. But recommended for a minor punishment. The Board after taking a lenient attitude has imposed a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The Board was superceded in May 2001 and a Special Officer was appointed. According to the second respondent, all the relevant documents relating to the disciplinary proceedings of petitioner were missing from the files of the Bank. Though the then President has claimed that he had handed over the files to the Secretary, the same has been denied by the petitioner, who functioned as the Secretary of the Bank.
4. The second respondent has further submitted that since the offence of misappropriation relates to a huge sum of Rs.13,00,000/-, prosecution was initiated by the Deputy Registrar against the petitioner and others and CCIW has registered a case in Crime No.7/2000.
5. The second respondent has further submitted that the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, in exercise of the powers granted under section 76 of the Co-operative Societies Act, directed that the petitioner, Secretary should be placed under suspension, in view of the criminal case pending before CCIW in public interest. Therefore, he submitted that the suspension has been made in public interest. The second respondent has further submitted that an enquiry under section 81 of the Tamilnadu Co-operative Societies Act has been conducted and based on the same, action has been initiated against the then Board of Directors, including the Secretary. In these circumstances, the second respondent has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order.
6. Placing reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court, in K. Marappan Vs. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal Circle, Namakkal and another reported in (2006) 4 M.L.J. 641, has held as follows:
".......The bye-laws made by a Co-operative Society registered under the Tamilnadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 do not have the force of law. Hence, where a Society cannot be characterised as a State, the service conditions of its
