In the absence of any rule or bye-law, it is not permissible to continue disciplinary proceedings after an employee's superannuation.

M. Sathyanarayanan, J.

1. The writ petitioner is the appellant.

2. He made a challenge to the order dated 3.12.2008, passed by the first respondent, wherein his revision petition came to be dismissed. The said writ petition after contest, was dismissed on 5.6.2012, and hence, this writ appeal.

3. The facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal, would disclose that the appellant/writ petitioner was working as a Secretary of the second respondent-society and he was due to attain the age of superannuation on 31.1.2004. However, on 30.1.2004, the second respondent has issued a memo suspending him from service on contemplation of enquiry. However, no order has been passed, not permitting the appellant to retire from service and also retaining him in service. On 15.5.2004, a charge memo was served on the appellant alleging irregularities in the discharge of his duties and a challenge was made to the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that it has been initiated without any jurisdiction, by way of filing W.P.No.28873 of 2005. The said writ petition was admitted on 9.7.2005, and interim stay was granted. The same was dismissed on 25.7.2008 by applying the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in a decision reported in 2006 (4) CTC 689 (K.MARAPPAN VS. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NAMAKKAL CIRCLE, NAMAKKAL AND ANOTHER) and while dismissing the writ petition, liberty was granted to the appellant herein to redress his grievance before an appropriate forum and accordingly the appellant filed a revision under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 before the first respondent with a prayer to quash the disciplinary proceedings and it was rejected on 5.9.2008, and the same was put to challenge by filing the present writ petition.

4. The learned Single Judge, during the course of argument in the writ petition, placed reliance on the judgment reported in 2010 (2) CTC 569 (M.K.S. Balasubramanian vs. Kancheepuram Central Cooperative Bank Limited, rep. by its Special Officer). The learned Single Judge has taking into consideration the judgment rendered by the Division Bench reported in 2010 (2) CTC 234 (Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai-10 and another vs. G.Manoharan), has dismissed the said writ petition and challenging the legality of the same, the present writ appeal is filed.

5. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

6. The core issue that arises for consideration in this writ appeal, is that in the absence of any rule, whether it is open to the first respondent to initiate and continue the disciplinary proceedings after attaining the age of superannuation. The said issue is no longer res integra, as it has been answered by a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2010 (2) CTC 569 (M.K.S.Balasubramanian vs. Kancheepuram Central Cooperative Bank Limited, rep. by its Special Officer). In the said judgment, the Division Bench, wherein one of us (NPVJ) is a member, has taken into consideration the judgments reported in 1999 (3) SCC 666 (Bhagsrathi Jena vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C., and others), 2006 (4) MLJ 504 (F.Muthusamy vs. Tamil Nadu Cements Corporation Ltd., 2007 (5) CTC 491 (N.Kunnai Gowder vs. The Coimbatore District Co-operative Milk Producers'' Union Ltd., 2008 (2) SCC 41 (U.P. State Sugar Co-operation Ltd., and Others vs. Kamal Swaroop Tondon) and also distinguished the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2010 (2) CTC 234 (Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai-10 and another vs. G.Manoharan) and held as follows:

"9. It is an admitted case of the respondent that the bye-law though provided for a right to continue the Bank to proceed with disciplinary proceedings after allowing the appellant to retire the said amendment is stayed by this Court and the said stay order is still in force.