O R D E R

The order of dismissal from service issued by the second respondent-Cooperative Society dated 25.10.2010, confirmed by the order of Revisional Authority in proceedings dated 25.03.2013, are under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner was appointed as Clerk on 28.11.1990 in the second respondent-Cooperative Society. With reference to grant of loan to the members of the second respondent-Society, charges were framed against the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 24.01.2009. The writ petitioner was placed under suspension on 09.01.2009. Nine charges were framed against the writ petitioner. The allegations are regarding grant of irregular loans and causing financial loss to the second respondent- Cooperative Society. The excess loan than that of the eligibility were sanctioned and disbursed to the members and therefore, the second respondent-Cooperative Society sustained financial loss. The writ petitioner submitted his explanations denying the charges.

3. The Domestic Enquiry Officer was appointed in proceedings dated 12.05.2009. The writ petitioner participated in the process of enquiry and defended his case. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 29.09.2009 holding that the charges against the writ petitioner are held proved. The enquiry report of the Enquiry Officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and the order of dismissal from service was issued in proceedings dated 25.10.2010 after issuing the second show cause notice along with the copy of the domestic enquiry report.

4. The petitioner had defended his case in the enquiry proceedings. The petitioner thereafter filed revision under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 before the first respondent, who in turn also rejected the revision in proceedings dated 25.03.2013 and the review filed under Section 154 of the Act, was also rejected on 25.06.2013. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

5. The main ground raised by the petitioner is that the loan amount has been waived by the Government by way of a policy decision and once the loan had been waived, there is no financial loss to the second respondent-Cooperative society and therefore, the order of dismissal is to be set aside. It is further contended that the petitioner is not liable for any such irregularity in grant of loan and loans were granted according to the eligibility of the individual members and the second respondent- Cooperative Society had not proved the charges before the Enquiry Officer and the explanations and the documents produced by the writ petitioner were not considered by the Competent Authority.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent-Cooperative Society disputed the said contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the allegations are serious in nature. The charges are relating to sanctioning of loan to the members in excess than that of the eligibility of the respective members, which caused financial loss.

7. The learned counsel for the second respondent-Cooperative Society further contended that the charges were framed against the Secretary, Assistant Secretary and the writ petitioner-Clerk and all the three were dismissed from service as the financial implications were huge during the relevant point of time. That apart, based on the statutory enquiry conducted under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act 1983 and based on the report, criminal case was registered against all the three officials of the second respondent-Cooperative Society and also against the President and the Board of Directors. That apart, surcharge proceedings were also initiated against all the officials and the elected members of the second respondent-Cooperative Society. This being the factum, the petitioner cannot be exonerated merely because of the loan amount that has been waived by the Government by way of policy decision.

8. The Government announced a policy