The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Section 77 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 govern the removal and reinstatement of employees based on criminal convictions, and the test laid down in Marappan's case continues to govern the maintainability of writ petitions against Co-operative Societies.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against the common order dated 21.09.2010 in W.P(MD)No.11417 of 2010.)

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the Writ Court made in W.P(MD)No.11417 of 2010 dated 21.09.2010, wherein, the Writ Court dismissed several writ petitions filed by the employees of various Cooperative Societies on the ground that a writ petition against a Cooperative Society is not maintainable.

2. The facts that led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:-

The appellant was appointed as a Junior Assistant in the services of the respondent Co-operative Society on 30.01.1995. He was placed under suspension on 03.07.1998 for actively aiding the Assistant Manager to fabricate a demand draft in the name of his close relative. A charge memo was issued to the appellant and after a domestic enquiry, he was terminated from service by order dated 20.03.1999. An appeal was preferred by the appellant before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Sivagangai District. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 04.11.2003. There were no further proceedings challenging the order of termination. In the meantime, a prosecution was launched by the Society in C.C.No.146 of 2000. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, by its judgment dated 28.02.2008, acquitted the accused persons. Soon after the acquittal, the appellant made a representation to the Society/employer on 17.04.2008, seeking reinstatement into service in view of Section 77(4) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as, ''the Act''), on the ground that he has been acquitted in the criminal case. This was followed by another representation dated 23.09.2008. The said representations were rejected by the employer on 02.01.2009, on the ground that Section 77(4) of the Act cannot be invoked by the appellant inasmuch as the offence for which he was prosecuted under the criminal law and the delinquency for which the disciplinary proceedings were taken, are one and the same.

3. Section 77 of the Act which deals with removal of paid officer or servant of the society and it reads as follows:-

“77. Removal of paid officer or servant of society-(1) Where a paid officer or servant of a registered society has been found guilty or convicted by a competent court for and offence involving moral turpitude, the Registrar may, if in his opinion that the removal of such paid officer or servant is necessary in the public interest or in the interests of such society, after giving such officers or servant, and if such officer or servant is borne on a common cadre of service, the competent authority constituted under sub-section (3) of section 75 and in other cases, such registered society, an opportunity of making his or its representation, direct the competent authority or such registered society, as the case may be, to remove or cause to be removed such officer or servant from the service of such society.

(2) On receipt of a direction from the Registrar under subsection (1), the competent authority or the registered society, as the case may be, shall notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the rules or the by-laws or the order under subsection (1) of section 75 remove or cause to be removed the paid officer or servant from the service of that society forthwith.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), and without prejudice to the provisions contained in section 88, if in the opinion of the Registrar, the competent authority or the registered society, as the case may be either willfully disobeys or willfully fails to comply with any direction issued under subsection (1), he may, by order, remove such paid officer or servant of that society.

(4) Where a paid officer or servant of a registered society removed from service under subsection (2) or sub-section (3) is acquitted by the competent court, or when the conviction of such officer or servant is set aside on appe