The main legal point established in the judgment is that charges of irregular appointments, promotions, and non-renewal of lease must be legally sustainable to permanently disqualify an individual from holding office in a registered society under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act.

JUDGMENT :

R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to order of the second respondent in Na. Ka. No. 91407/2012 Sapa 3, dated 24.05.2013, confirming the order of the third respondent in Na. Ka. 4216/02/Sa.Pa. dated 28.05.2010, permanently disqualifying the petitioner from holding any office of any registered Societies in future under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and quash the same.

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the second respondent herein, confirming the order of the third respondent, under which, the writ petitioner was permanently disqualified from holding any office of any registered society under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983.

2. According to the petitioner, he was the president of Thiruvattar Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank between 1996 and 1999. During the said tenure, there was no allegation as against the writ petitioner. After completing the tenure from his office, surcharge proceedings were initiated under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and an order was passed as against him on 09.10.2002. The main allegation on which such proceedings were initiated was that certain irregular appointments and promotions were made during his tenure in office.

3. The petitioner further contended that the order passed in the said surcharge proceedings was challenged by him along with others, in C.M.A. (C.S.) No. 11 of 2003 on the file of the District Court/Cooperative Tribunal, Kannyakumari at Nagercoil. The learned District Judge was pleased to hold that the appointments were effected only pursuant to a settlement arrived at under Section 12 (3) Industrial Disputes Act on 07.10.1999. In view of the above said fact, the appeal filed by the writ petitioner was allowed and the surcharge proceedings were set aside on 17.04.2009. Immediately thereafter, notice was issued to the respondents, why action should not be initiated for permanently disqualifying him under Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act.

4. As per the said notice, four charges were levied as against the writ petitioner. The first charge relates to irregular appointment of two persons. The second charge related to grant of irregular promotion to certain employees. The third allegation related to the fact that after expiry of the lease term, the petitioner has not taken any steps for renewal of the lease of the shops belonging to the Co-operative Society. The fourth allegation related to the fact that the petitioner, without obtaining administrative sanction, had utilized the general fund of the society.

5. After enquiry, an order was passed on 28.05.2010 by the third respondent herein, finding the petitioner as delinquent with regard to the first three charges and discharging the writ petitioner from the charge of improper utilisation of societies general funds. The said order passed by the third respondent herein was challenged by the writ petitioner before the second respondent. The second respondent by his order, dated 24.05.2013, has confirmed the order passed by the third respondent herein. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that as far as the allegation relating to appointment of two persons, namely, Chandrasekaran and Melba Chinnarani are concerned, those appointments were effected only based upon a settlement arrived at under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The services of those employees were regularised and later ratified by the successor, namely, the Special Officer.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that as far as the promotion of four employees are concerned they were also ratified and by the successor in administration, namely, the Special Officer. No proce