The main legal point established in the judgment is the appropriateness of the punishment for misappropriation of funds and the reluctance to reduce punishment based on misplaced sympathy.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the Impugned Order dated 14.07.2016 passed in Na.Ka.No.6772/2015/Sa.pa. on the file of the 1st respondent herein, quash the same in so far as it relates to the punishment modified on the 2nd respondent herein is concerned.)

1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to call for the records relating to the Impugned Order dated 14.07.2016 passed in Na.Ka.No.6772/2015/Sa.pa. on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same in so far as it relates to the punishment modified on the 2nd respondent.

2. The writ petitioner is G.1836, Kayapakkam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society. The second respondent was working as Clerk and was given additional Charge as Sales Man in Chinna Kayappakkam Village Fair Price Shop. Based on the complaint received from the general public, the second respondent/employee was placed under suspension on 18.09.2014. A charge memorandum dated 16.10.2014 was issued to the 2nd respondent, framing six charges against him. The charges against the writ petitioner are:

(i) that he did not perform his function as Sales Man with sincerity as he did not supply the commodities to card holders properly and abused the Card Holders and thereby caused hindrance to the Public Distribution System.

(ii) that he expressed his insubordination to the orders of the Superiors.

(iii) that he fraudulently made entries in the Stock Register and Sales Invoice. (iv) that on suspension he did not hand over the charge to the successor properly.

(v) that he misappropriated the Sale process without remitting it in the society.

(vi) that after suspension, he had signed the Attendance Register from 18.09.2014 to 23.09.2014.

3. The second respondent/employee submitted his explanation, denying the charges on 31.10.2014. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry officer, who in turn, conducted an enquiry by affording opportunity to the second respondent/employee and submitted his final report on 01.04.2015, holding that the charges against the 2nd respondent/employee are held proved. Accepting the report of the enquiry officer, the Disciplinary Authority issued second show cause notice on 18.05.2015, providing an opportunity to the second respondent/employee to submit his further objections on the findings of the enquiry officer. The second respondent/employee made a request for fresh enquiry by the enquiry officer. On 23.09.2015 at 11.00 am, the second respondent/employee was called for personal hearing, but he had not chosen to appear for the personal hearing and thereafter, the file was placed before the committee for discussion and for taking a decision. The committee, after elaborate discussion, passed a Resolution on 23.09.2015, to terminate the services of the second respondent. Consequently, the second respondent/employee was dismissed from service in proceedings dated 25.09.2015. The second respondent/employee filed a Revision Petition under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 before the first respondent on 25.09.2015 and the first respondent / Revisional Authority through the impugned order dated 14.07.2016, allowed the Revision Petition partly and modified the punishment of dismissal from service to that of 3 years of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect. Thus, the Management of the Co-operative Society is constrained to move the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the proved charges are very serious and the charges proved including the allegations of misappropriation. When the petitioner was imposed the punishment of dismissal from service for the proved charges of misappropriation and other serious misconducts, there is no reason for the first respondent / Revisional Authority to modify the punishment. The modific