The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of a Revision Petition under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, and the binding judgments and legal principles established in previous cases.

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

The writ petition (W.P. (MD). No. 2544 of 2006) has been filed by the management of the Dindigul Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited (hereinafter referred as the petitioner society), challenging the orders passed by the first respondent, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Dindigul Region, Dindigul, in Revision Petition in No. 36 of 2003 and Review Petition No. 2 of 2004, dated 26.12.2003 and 31.3.2005 respectively, which Revision/Review petitions were filed by the second respondent. The case of the petitioner society is that the second respondent was working as a Supervisor in the petitioner society and was placed under suspension and a show cause notice dated 17.11.1997 was issued to the second respondent. Thereafter, a charge memo dated 23.2.1998 was issued calling upon the second respondent to submit his explanation. As the second respondent failed to give an explanation, an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges and the Enquiry Officer submitted a report, dated 16.7.1998 holding that the charges were proved.

2. A second show cause was issued to the second respondent on 31.7.1998 and the second respondent was granted 15 days time to submit his explanation. Further 10 days time was granted by the letter, dated 10.8.1998. Since the second respondent failed to submit any explanation within the time granted, the petitioner society by order, dated 18.8.1998, dismissed the second respondent from service. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the second respondent filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 12175 of 1998 and challenging the second show cause notice dated 31.7.1998, the second respondent filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 13194 of 1998.

3. The above-said writ petitions were disposed of by this Court by order, dated 12.12.2002 and thereafter, the second respondent filed a Revision Petition u/s 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter, referred as the Act) before the first respondent. The same was taken on file as Revision Petition No. 36 of 2003 and the Revisional Authority held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the second respondent by the petitioner society was not fair and proper and the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate with the proved charges and accordingly, set aside the order of dismissal and imposed lesser punishment of withholding of increment for two years with cumulative effect and to treat the period of non-employment as leave on loss of pay. This order, dated 26.12.2003, passed by the first respondent is challenged in this writ petition by the petitioner society.

4. The second respondent also filed a Review Petition challenging the order passed by the first respondent with regard to back wages and the Review Petition was dismissed. Challenging the order of dismissal of Review Petition, the second respondent has filed a writ petition in W.P. (MD). No. 6508 of 2005.

5. Since, the issues involved in both the writ petitions were identical and in both the writ petitions the same proceedings were challenged, they are heard together and disposed of by this Common order.

6. Mr. S. Seenivasagam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner society contended that the Revision Petition filed by the second respondent u/s 153 of the Act is not maintainable and the first respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute as regards non employment.

7. It is submitted that u/s 153 of the Act, the Registrar can examine records in respect of any proceedings under the Act or Rules or the by-laws. The word 'proceedings' u/s 153 of the Act has to be understood from the construction of the Statute and it not be the proceeding in respect of which, an appeal to the Tribunal is provided under sub-section (1) of Section 152 of the Act. It is further contended that the 'proceedings' does not come within the ambit of the Act or Rules or by-laws or in exercise of power conferred under them and the order o