The fairness of adjudication under Section 153 of the Act when the same ranking authority passes the original order of punishment and the Revisional order.

ORDER :

1. The order passed by the Revisional Authority under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 [hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’] is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The Revisional Authority confirmed the order of removal from service issued on the writ petitioner in the departmental disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner was an employee in the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Union and departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated based on certain allegations, which all are grave in nature and the proceedings ended with the order of punishment of dismissal from service.

3. The main ground raised by the petitioner is that the Additional Registrar, who decided the Revision Petition under Section 153 of the Act was the authority, who issued the original punishment order in his capacity as the Managing Director of the Co-operative Union.

4. The original punishment of dismissal from service was issued by the officer in the rank of Additional Registrar. In the present case, the Revision Petition filed under Section 153 of the Act was also decided by the officer in the rank of Additional Registrar. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the petitioner did not get a fair opportunity for adjudication under Section 153 of the Act.

5. In such circumstances, where the Disciplinary Authority and the Revisional Authority is in the same cadre, then the Revision under Section 153 of the Act is to be decided by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies himself. Registrar being the Statutory Authority under the provisions of the Act, the Additional Registrars are exercising the delegated powers and the original powers under the Act vest with the Registrar. That being the scheme of the Act, in the present case, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies ought to have considered the Revision Petition and pass an order.

6. In view of the fact that the same ranking authority passed the original order of punishment and the Revisional order, this Court is inclined to remand the matter back to the Registrar for adjudication and to pass final orders.

7. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in respect of the co-employee to the writ petitioner, the Board of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Union has passed a Resolution, revoking the order of dismissal from service. When the Revision was decided by the Statutory authority under Section 153 of the Act, thereafter the Board cannot entertain an appeal, since the scheme of the Act provides that the original authority’s decision may be challenged before the Appellate Authority and in the present case, the Appellate Authority is the Board of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Union and thereafter, the aggrieved person can approach the Revisional Authority under Section 153 of the Act. Once, the Appellate remedy before the Board was not exhausted and the Revision Remedy under Section 153 of the Act was exhausted, thereafter, such an employee cannot go back to the lower authority and seek any relief in respect of the order of punishment.

8. In the case of the co-employee, the said employee had not preferred any Revision under Section 153 of the Act and therefore, this Court allowed the said petitioner to approach the Board and the Board considered his appeal. However, those cases are to be reviewed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and if it is found that any erroneous decisions are taken by the Board, such decisions are to be reviewed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies by invoking the suo motu power or otherwise in consonance with the provisions of the Act through Government.

9. At the outset, the Registrar in the present case has to look into the files in entirety and take all appropriate actions in the manner known to law.

10. As far as the writ petitioner is concerned, the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings Review No.9/2016 Na.Ka.4754/2016/E2 dated 27.06.2018 is quashed and the matter is remand