The absence of rules empowering the continuation of disciplinary proceedings after an officer's retirement and the limitations on the authority of the Common Cadre Authority after its abolition.

D.MURUGESAN, J.

1. This writ appeal is directed against the order of this Court dated 11.12.2009 dismissing the Writ Petition in W.P.No.1447/2009 filed by the appellant herein. The Writ Petition came to be filed questioning the order of the Chairman, Common Cadre Committee/Joint Registrar of Cooperative Society, Namakkal, dated 09.09.2008 and the consequential order dated 23.12.2008 relating to the charge memo issued to the appellant.

2. The appellant was employed in the second respondent - S-1067, Jamin Ellampalli Primary Agricultural Cooperative Bank Ltd., initially as Clerk, and later promoted as

Secretary in the year 1987. By the order of the Special Officer of the Society dated 25.08.2004, the appellant was suspended from service and as many as six charges were framed against him. The explanation offered by the appellant was found to be unsatisfactory. Hence an enquiry was ordered. The appellant participated in the enquiry and ultimately, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 19.12.2005. Based on the enquiry report, the appellant was issued with a show cause notice dated 02.05.2007 and the appellant also submitted his explanation. Finally, the appellant was found guilty of the charges and by order dated 23.06.2007, he was dismissed from service.

3. The appellant questioned the said order of dismissal by filing Writ Petition in W.P.No.32697/2007 and the said Writ Petition was dismissed by this Court by order dated 23.06.2007. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the appellant preferred W.A.No.1521/2007 and the same was allowed by Judgment dated 14.12.2007, directing the second Respondent society to reinstate the appellant in service with liberty to the Competent Authority to initiate disciplinary action against the appellant. Before the enquiry could commence as directed by the Division Bench, the appellant was allowed to retire from service on 30.06.2007. Subsequently, by proceedings dated 30.03.2009, Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Namakkal, sought for an explanation from the appellant based on the Enquiry Officer's Report dated 09.03.2009.

4.The appellant questioned the charge memo dated 09.09.2008 by filing W.P.No.1147/2009 on the ground that after the abolition of the post of Common Cadre Authority vide Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.122 Cooperative Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 04.07.2008, the said Authority did not have jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry. Secondly, as the order of termination was set aside and the appellant was directed to be reinstated in service by this Court vide its Judgment dated 14.12.2007, the entire proceeding is deemed to have been set aside and there was no enquiry pending thereafter, till such time the impugned charge memo dated 09.09.2008 was issued. The said challenge did not find favour with the learned single Judge and for that view, the Writ Petition was dismissed. It is against this order, the present writ appeal is filed.

5.In this writ appeal, the following two questions arise for our consideration viz.,

(i) Whether the Society is justified in continuing with the proceedings, even after allowing the Secretary to retire from service and in the absence of any Rule permitting the society to do so ?

(ii) Whether after the Common Cadre Authority was abolished vide G.O.Ms.No.122 Cooperative Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 04.07.2008, the said Authority could issue charge memo ?

6. We have heard Mr.M.S.Palanisamy, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr.R.Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader for the first Respondent and Mr.Jothimanian, learned Counsel for the second respondent society.

7. As far as the first question is concerned, admittedly, there is no Rule empowering the Special Officer to continue the proceedings against the Secretary, after the Secretary was allowed to retire though reserving rights to proceed with the enquiry. Mr.Jothimanian, learned Counsel for the Society, submitted that the power of the s