Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
D. Dhayalan
Versus
The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society, Kanchipuram District & Another
W.P.No.8002 of 2003
Decided On : 03-12-2010
Misappropriation - Employment Dispute - Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, Section 153 - Section 81 Enquiry Report - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - Dismissal from Service
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a senior clerk at a cooperative society, was suspended and later dismissed from service based on charges of misappropriation, cheating, and creating false documents. The petitioner challenged the suspension and dismissal through a writ petition, alleging violation of principles of natural justice and delay in completing the enquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges against the petitioner were proved in the domestic enquiry, and the dismissal from service was justified based on the seriousness of the misconduct. The court also held that the delay in completing the enquiry did not vitiate the findings, and the writ petition lacked merit.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, delay in completing the enquiry, and maintainability of the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The dismissal of the petitioner was justified based on the proved charges of misappropriation and serious misconduct. The delay in completing the enquiry did not invalidate the findings, and the writ petition was deemed to lack merit.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
1. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition praying for an issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus in calling for the records of the 1st Respondent in his Proceedings in R.C.No.10936/2000/A3 dated 24.08.2001 and records of the Impugned Order of the 2nd Respondent in R.C.No.15/99/Tha.Aa. dated 11.08.2000 and to quash the same and further to direct the Respondents to re-instate the Petitioner in service with back wages, monetary and other service benefits.
2. The Petitioner joined as a Salesman on 22.01.1979. He was promoted as Clerk on 01.04.1990 and as Senior Clerk on 01.12.1997.
3. The Petitioner was placed under suspension by the 2nd Respondent based on the direction of the 1st Respondent on the basis that an enquiry into grave charges was contemplated as per proceeding dated 09.03.1993. Thereafter, a charge memo was issued to the Petitioner on 30.09.1999. To the aforesaid charge memo, the Petitioner submitted his explanation denying all the charges. The Petitioner was removed from service by the 2nd Respondent as per proceedings dated 11.08.2000. The Petitioner filed Revision as per Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act to the 1st Respondent and the same has been rejected on 24.08.2001 as per proceedings of the 1st Respondent in R.C.No.10936/2000/A3. As against the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent dated 24.08.2001 and as against the impugned order dated 11.08.2000 of the 2nd Respondent, the Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition before this Court.
4. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Petitioner challenged the suspension order passed by the 2nd Respondent by means of filing a Writ Petition No.5801 of 1999 before this Court and this Court has passed the order on 07.04.1999 by inter alia observing that an Enquiry Officer has to be appointed, who is to complete enquiry and pass final orders on merits, of course, after giving reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner in compliance with the principles of natural justice, within six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and further directed the Respondents to pay the subsistence allowance as per relevant rules and dismissed the Writ Petition without costs.
5. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the suspension order prolonged for more than 16 months and therefore, the entire proceedings are liable to be set aside in view of the direction of this Court to complete enquiry within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, which has not been complied with and moreover, the Petitioner has nothing to do with the misappropriation of the amounts of the Society and the charge memo dated 30.09.1999 is only a vexatious one.
6. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that for the amounts mentioned in the charge memo under various caption, proceedings have been initiated against the staffs concerned viz., Saraswathy, Thangam, N.Kumar, N.Francier and G.Nithiyanandham in the year 1997 itself and therefore, for the same sum of money again the charge memo cannot be issued against the Petitioner.
7. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that for the amounts misappropriated by the Saraswathy (Cashier), she along with her husband have executed a Sale Deed dated 01.12.1997 in respect of the property which is worth about Rs.30 lakhs to the Society and also that Thangam (Fertiliser Saleswoman) for the amounts misappropriated by her, has executed the General Power of Attorney on 10.09.1997 to the Society authorising the President to sell her property wroth of Rs.15 lakhs so as to remit the sale consideration to the Society.
8. A plea of the Petitioner is that recovery proceedings have been initiated simultaneously against N.Kumar (Clerk) and G.Nithiyanandham (Secretary) in the year 1997 and recovered Rs.2,60,000/- from N.Kumar, Rs.1,60,000/-from N.Franciers and Rs.2,70,000/- from
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
