The impugned circular did not have the authority to prevent the petitioner from retiring, and the specific provisions governing the appointment and service conditions of employees under Chapter VIII of the Act were emphasized by the court.

The writ petition is directed against the circular issued by the first respondent, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies along with the consequential memo issued by the third respondent, Co-operative Bank dated 37. 2008, by which the petitioner was allowed to retire on superannuation on 37. 2008, but relieved on the said date without prejudice to the surcharge proceedings initiated under section 87(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The writ petition is also for direction against the respondents to permit the petitioner to retire from service on superannuation on 37. 2008 with all retirement benefits.

2. Earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.No.19165 of 2008 against the impugned notice of the third respondent dated 37. 2008. Since he had no other particulars and during the pendency of the said writ petition, in the counter affidavit it was informed that the third respondent passed the order only based on the circular issued by the first respondent wherein it is stated that the District Level Committee has to screen the retirement of persons employed in the Societies in all cadres, the said writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition and thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The petitioner was working as a Manager in the third respondent Society, against which an inquiry under section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act,1983 (in short, "the Act") was ordered. Subsequent to the inquiry, surcharge proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under section 87 of the Act on 8. 2005. The main charge was that the Society granted mortgage loans contrary to the bye-laws to the extent of Rs.1 crore. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was rejected and surcharge order came to be passed holding that the petitioner and 24 other persons are responsible for irregularities.

3(a). Aggrieved by the said surcharge order, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 152 of the Act, which is pending. The petitioner was due to retire on attaining the age of 58 years on 37. 2008. However, the third respondent did not allow the petitioner to retire based on the instructions of the first respondent dated 27. 2008, but relieved him from service. In the said order of the first respondent, the surcharge order dated 10. 2007 passed under section 87 of the Act was taken note of and therefore, the entire monetary service benefits due to the petitioner were withheld.

3(b). The said order relieving the petitioner, but at the same time, retaining him in service for disciplinary proceedings is challenged on the ground that there are no powers available under section 87 of the Act. The circular of the first respondent dated 6. 2008, is also challenged as contrary to law and affecting the fundamental rights of citizens, apart from the grounds that the first respondent has no jurisdiction to issue such circular and such circular has not been issued in public interest and that as per the bye-laws, the petitioner is entitled to retire and such right cannot be taken away by the circular issued by the first respondent.

3(c). It is stated that for recovery of amount, the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act provides a mechanism and the constitution of any such Committee is illegal and that the payment of gratuity and provident fund amount is a basic right which cannot be detained under any circumstances. It is stated that the charge memo issued by the third respondent on 22. 2006 against the petitioner was deliberately kept pending till the date of retirement in spite of the fact that the circumstance that the enquiry officer has given a finding to drop the charges.

4. In thecounter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is stated that the circular has been issued as per the powers conferred under section 181 of the Act in public interest and it was only based on the said circular, the second respondent, the District Level Committee which was constituted in respect