Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
M. Senthilvelan – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Dharmapuri – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Both writ petitions were filed by the same petitioner and arguments were advanced in common by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the first and second respondents and therefore, a common order is passed.
2. The writ petition in W.P.No.12242 of 2025 has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to the charge memo dated 25.08.2024 and consequential notice in Na.Ka.No.92/2004 Tha.Ku.Na.Va. dated 10.03.2025 and 26.03.2025 on the file of the second respondent and to quash the same. The petitioner seeks that his service benefits be settled, as he will be attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2025.
3. The writ petition in W.P.No.12244 of 2025 has been filed in the nature of a Certiorari seeking records relating to an order of suspension passed by the second respondent dated 29.03.2025 in Na.Ka.No.11/2025 Pa.Tho and quash the same.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of these writ petitions, it had been contended that the writ petitioner M.Senthilvelan had been appointed as Junior Assistant in the second respondent Bank/Dharmapuri Co-operative Town Bank Ltd., Dharmapuri on 02.01.1991.
Disciplinary proceedings for employee misconduct can be maintained irrespective of delays from earlier actions, emphasizing the right to investigate allegations of financial irregularities.
The standard of proof required under the Co-operative Societies Act is distinct and different from that required under Criminal Law, and preponderance of probabilities suffices for punishment under t....
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 proc....
Employee dismissal requires substantial evidence of misconduct; failure to provide independent proof necessitates reconsideration of disciplinary actions.
The court ruled that disciplinary dismissals must adhere to natural justice and have sufficient evidence, particularly when severe penalties are imposed, as seen in cases of clerical errors.
Disciplinary action must align with evidence; disproportionate punishment is not permissible when actions were taken in good faith.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
