The judgment established the importance of the power vested with the Disciplinary Authority, the right of appeal against the punishment, and the availability of a review petition under Rule 38 of the Rules.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order of the first respondent Co-operative Society dated 30.10.2000 confirming the order dated 10.03.1999 passed by the second respondent.

2. The petitioner was a clerk of the second respondent Co-operative Society. He was placed under suspension by an order dated 24.11.1998. Subsequently, a charge memo was framed on 04.01.1999. A show cause notice dated 19.01.1999 was issued to the petitioner stating that since he had accepted the charges and the charges were severe, he should be dismissed from service. After getting his explanation and placing it before the Board of Directors and passing a resolution dated 04.03.1999, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 10.03.1999. The petitioner was informed that his dismissal came into effect from 24.11.1998, namely the date of suspension.

3. The petitioner had filed a revision before the first respondent under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. The second respondent Society on notice from the Revisional Authority had filed a detailed counter. The Revisional Authority by his final order dated 31.10.2000 dismissed the revision. He held that the petitioner both in his first and second explanations had unconditionally accepted the charges and he had never raised any ground relating to non-conducting of a domestic enquiry. Therefore, considering the misconduct committed by the petitioner, his dismissal was justified. It is against this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. The writ petition was admitted on 06.09.2001. On notice from this Court, the respondents have entered appearance.

5. Mr.R.Parthiban, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that contrary to the special bylaws, instead of the Sub-Committee passing appropriate orders, the Board itself had passed orders. Therefore, the petitioner had lost his valuable right of appeal against the punishment. If the Sub-Committee had passed the order, he could have filed an appeal to the Board of Directors and hence, the impugned order of dismissal was erroneous.

6. In this context, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Electronics Corporation of India v. G.Muralidhar reported in (2001) 10 SCC 43, wherein, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the order of an Appellate Authority in passing a dismissal order usurping the power vested with the Disciplinary Authority was found fault with.

7. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Surjit Ghosh v. Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and others reported in AIR 1995 SC 1053, wherein the Supreme Court in Paragraph 5 held as follows:-

"5. The respondent-Bank in its submission contended that although it is true that the Deputy General Manager had acted as the disciplinary authority when he was in fact named under the Regulations as an appellate authority, no prejudice is caused to the appellant because the Deputy General Manager is higher in rank than the disciplinary authority, viz., the Divisional Manager/AGM (Personnel). According to the Bank, it should be held that when the order of punishment is passed by a higher authority, no appeal is available under the Regulations as it is not necessary to provide for the same. It was also contended that there is no right to appeal unless it is provided under the Rules or Regulations. Although the argument looks attractive at first sight, its weakness lies in the fact that it tries to place the Rules/Regulations which provide no appeal on par with the Rules/Regulations where appeal is provided. It is true that when an authority higher than the disciplinary authority itself imposes the punishment, the order of punishment suffers from no illegality when no appeal is provided to such authority. However, when an appeal is provided to the higher authority concerned against the order