The court emphasized the importance of considering a petition on its merits, especially when filed within the limitation period, and directed the correct authority to do so.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in the letter having Ref.No.Na.Ka.No.22017/2018/H2, dated 02.12.2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the petitioner''s Review Petition dated 07.05.2018 on merits within a reasonable period of time fixed by this Court.)

1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 1st respondent in the letter having Ref.No.Na.Ka.No.22017/2018/H2, dated 02.12.2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the petitioner''s Review Petition dated 07.05.2018 on merits within a reasonable period of time.

2. The facts of the case in a nutshell:- The petitioner was appointed as a Manager in the 3rd respondent Society and during the Special General Body meeting of the third respondent held on 26.12.2017, the petitioner was assaulted by one Loganathan and 8 other members of the 3rd respondent society at the instigation of one Thirunavukarasu, the President of the 3rd respondent Society. The petitioner was on medical leave from 27.12.2017 to 30.01.2018. The third respondent issued the suspension order dated 06.01.2018 suspending the petitioner w.e.f. 28.12.2017 and a charge memo dated 18.01.2018 was issued by the 3rd respondent. It was stated in the said charge memo that the charges were based on the records and complaints mentioned in Annexure III of the said charge memo. But copies of the said documents were not enclosed along with the said Charge Memo. Therefore the petitioner by his letter dated 06.02.2018 requested the 3rd respondent to furnish copies of those documents so as to enable him to peruse those documents and send an explanation to the charge memo. The third respondent by letter dated 14.02.2018 refused to issue copies of the said documents and proceeded to conduct domestic enquiry by appointing an Advocate as an Enquiry Officer. The petitioner also requested the Enquiry officer through letters dated 23.02.2018, 02.03.2018, 13.03.2018 and 26.03.2018 to advice the 3rd respondent to furnish the copies of the documents related to the charges. Without furnishing the documents and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to submit explanation, the enquiry officer conducted an ex-parte enquiry and submitted his report dated 04.04.2018, observing that except charge No.10, the other charges were proved as against the petitioner.

2.1 The third respondent issued a second show cause notice dated 05.04.2018 enclosing a copy of the enquiry report and directed the petitioner to submit his explanation within three days as to why maximum punishment should not be imposed on him. The petitioner states that the enquiry proceedings were not enclosed along with the second show cause notice. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 09.04.2018, objecting to the disciplinary as well as domestic enquiry proceedings and requested for reinstatement into service. The third respondent issued the formal dismissal order dated 12.04.2018 dismissing the petitioner from service of the third respondent. Challenging the order of dismissal order dated 12.04.2018, the petitioner filed a revision petition in Revision Petition No.Na.Ka.No.5657/2018/E dated 07.05.2018 before the 2nd respondent under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. The second respondent/Assistant Director, Handlooms & Textiles, Erode issued summons in the revision petition and called upon for the appearance of the third respondent. The third respondent challenged the summons issued by the 2nd respondent by way of W.P.No.17431 of of 2018 on 03.07.2018 contending that the 2nd respondent has no power to entertain the revision filed by the petitioner under Section 153 and only the 1st respondent is the competent authority to entert