A co-operative society functions as a commercial establishment. Appellate authorities reviewing disciplinary terminations must evaluate gainful employment before awarding back wages, which are not automatic. Imposing separate penalties for the same misconduct violates the principle against double punishment.

COMMON ORDER :

M. DHANDAPANI, J.

These writ petitions are filed challenging the respective orders passed by the 1^st respondent, in T.N.S.E. II/01/2016 and T.N.S.E. II/03/2016, whereby the 1^st respondent directed reinstatement of the respective private respondents with full back wages and attendant benefits.

2. Brief facts :-

a) The petitioner is the Administrator of MD-520, Korattur Milk Consumers Co-operative Society, Chennai, a society registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. Upon expiry of the tenure of the elected Board, the petitioner was appointed as Administrator to manage the affairs of the Society.

b) The 2^nd respondent in W.P. No.19119 of 2024, Tmt. M. Anandha, was employed as an Assistant in the petitioner Society. During the course of her employment, serious financial irregularities came to light. It was found that she had failed to deposit the milk card sale collections amounting to Rs.25,301/- into the bank and had misappropriated the said amount. Further, she had unauthorisedly paid a sum of Rs.63,927/- to one Thiru S. Sekar, Depot Keeper, without any valid reason or supporting vouchers, thereby causing financial loss to the Society. Apart from the financial misconduct, the 2^nd respondent was also irregular in attendance, frequently absenting herself from duty without prior intimation and without submitting leave applications.

c) In view of the above misconduct, the 2^nd respondent in W.P. No.19119 of 2024 was placed under temporary suspension and a charge memo was issued to her. A domestic enquiry was conducted by affording her sufficient opportunity to defend herself. Upon completion of the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority found all the charges proved and, accordingly, imposed the punishment of termination from service.

d) Likewise, the 2^nd respondent in W.P. No.19205 of 2024, Thiru S. Sekar, was employed in the petitioner Society and had, at one point of time, worked as an Assistant in the head office. During the course of his employment, serious financial irregularities and misconduct came to light. It was found that he had misappropriated a sum of Rs.31,316/- received from wholesale dealers towards the Society. Further, he had received an amount of Rs.70,297/- from Tmt. M.Anandha, representing public milk card sales collections, and failed to remit the same to the Society, thereby embezzling the said amount.

e) Apart from the financial misconduct, the 2^nd respondent was irregular in attending duties, frequently absented himself without prior intimation, and failed to submit proper leave applications. In view of these grave irregularities, he was placed under temporary suspension. A charge memo was issued by the Board of the Society, and a domestic enquiry was instituted after affording him sufficient opportunity to defend himself.

f) The Enquiry Officer, upon a detailed examination of the materials and evidence placed on record, submitted a report holding that the charges levelled against the 2^nd respondent were proved. Based on the findings of the domestic enquiry, a show cause notice was issued, followed by a notice proposing termination. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority, being satisfied that the charges were established, passed an order terminating the services of the 2^nd respondent / private respondents.

g) Aggrieved by the order of termination, the 2^nd respondent in both W.P.s preferred an appeal before the 1^st respondent, under Section 41(2) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, in T.N.S.E. II/03/2016 and T.N.S.E. II/01/2016, contending that they have not been afforded sufficient opportunity during the enquiry pr