The central legal point established in the judgment is that a co-operative society has no legal authority to continue disciplinary proceedings against an employee after the employee's retirement, as per the statutory provisions.

1. The writ petition is directed against the charge memo of the respondent dated 25.6.2004, on the basis that the respondent has no power to continue the disciplinary proceedings since the petitioner was relieved from service with effect from 30.6.2004 on attainment of the age of superannuation.

2.1. The petitioner was employed as a Secretary of the respondent/ Society, which is a co-operative society, and he was to retire from service on attainment of the age of superannuation on 30.6.2004. It was five days before the date of superannuation the impugned charge memo came to be issued on 25.6.2004, on the basis that he was involved in the issuance of loans in an improper manner to power loom weavers and failed to recover the loans. It was also charged that the petitioner has failed to shift the society to the new building, for which sanction was given in the year 2001.

2.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the charge memo is motivated and according to him, on 30.6.2004, the petitioner was relieved from service on attaining the age of superannuation without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. The terminal benefits of the petitioner have been withheld by invoking the power under Rule 149(3) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988 (for brevity, "the Rules"). It is the case of the petitioner that neither the bye-laws of the society nor the Rules confer power on the respondent to continue the disciplinary proceedings after relieving him from service on attainment of age of superannuation and therefore, the respondent has no power to proceed with the charge memo.

2.3. The impugned charge memo is challenged on various grounds, including that as per the bye-laws governing the respondent/society, there is no provision to continue the disciplinary proceedings even after the employee is relieved from service on attainment of age of superannuation; that Rule 149(3) of the Rules has no application, since it cannot be deemed to be an enabling provision enabling the respondent/society to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings; and that even if the rules applicable to the government servants are applicable, unless as per Rule 56(1)(c) of the Fundamental Rules an order is passed retaining the delinquent in service and not allowing him to retire, there is no power to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings.

3.1. It is the case of the respondent, as it is stated in the counter affidavit, that the respondent is a co-operative society and as per the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court K.Marappan v. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal, 2006 (4) CTC 689, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. It is stated that the service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the bye-laws framed by the respondent/society.

3.2. It is also stated that the charges against the petitioner are grave in nature and huge amounts are due to the respondent/society due to the negligent act of the respondent. The petitioner was employed as a Secretary of the respondent/society and it was his duty to attend to the day to day administration of the respondent/society and the failure on his part has resulted in huge financial loss and that resulted in issuance of the charge memo. It is stated that the petitioner was due to retire on 30.6.2004 and he was allowed to retire on the said date without prejudice to the charges pending against him.

3.3. It is stated that Rule 149(3) of the Rules makes it clear that the rules governing the government servants are applicable and therefore, there is no impediment for relieving the petitioner and continuing the disciplinary proceedings against him. The charge memo was issued prior to his retirement and relieving of the petitioner is without prejudice to the rights of the respondent/society in proceeding with the enquiry and it is always open to the petitioner to file his objections and due to the negligen