The distinct standards of proof required under different legal frameworks, such as criminal law and departmental disciplinary proceedings, and the independent nature of departmental disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in his proceedings No.Na.Ka.8848/2008 Sa.Pa, dated 29.06.2010 whereby confirming the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.3/2005, dated 16.10.2008 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all attendant benefits and other back-wages.)

1. The punishment of dismissal from service imposed by the Management of the 2nd respondent / Co-operative Bank, which was confirmed by the Revisional Authority under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, in proceedings dated 29.06.2010, are under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner was working as Fertilizer Salesman in Brammadesam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Brammadesam, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District. The petitioner was placed under suspension with reference to certain serious irregularities and illegalities in financial matters. A charge memo was issued and an enquiry was conducted and based on the enquiry report, the 2nd respondent / Management issued the order of termination in proceedings dated 16.10.2008.

3. The petitioner states that the departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him based on the statutory enquiry report made under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. Simultaneously, surcharge proceedings were initiated to recover the financial loss occurred to the Cooperative Society under Section 87 of the Act and a criminal prosecution was also initiated through the Commercial Crime Investigation Wing of the Police Department. Against the order of termination dated 16.10.2008, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and the 1st respondent also failed to consider the grounds raised by the writ petitioner and confirmed the order removal from service in proceedings dated 29.06.2010. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner was no way connected with the financial irregularities as alleged in the charge memo. It was the Secretary, who was responsible for the financial irregularities to the tune of more than Rs.6 crores and the petitioner, being a Fertilizer Salesman, has no authority to sanction the loan and therefore, the punishment imposed is improper. No subsistence allowance was paid to the writ petitioner. Hence, the writ petitioner filed W.P.No.40169 of 2005. This Court directed the 2nd respondent / Cooperative Society to pay subsistence allowance. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Contempt Petition No.984 of 2006 and thereafter, the 2nd respondent paid the subsistence allowance and has given an undertaking that the Management will pay the further subsistence allowance.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the enquiry itself is vitiated on account of the non-payment of the subsistence allowance. The petitioner made a request to pay subsistence allowance and in spite of the request, the 2nd respondent has not paid and therefore, the order of dismissal from service is liable to be set aside.

6. Perusal of the entire affidavit filed in support of the writ petition except the ground relating to payment of the subsistence allowance. The petitioner has not contested the procedures followed by the respondents for conducting the enquiry. Perusal of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority in proceedings dated 16.10.2008, the same reveals that the allegation is relating to misappropriation of funds of the Cooperative Society. The total misappropriation of the funds of the Cooperative Society, is running to more than Rs.5 crores and all such financial irregularities, are relating to