O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the charge memo issued by the third respondent dated 06.03.2019 and the subsequent order dated 29.05.2019 extending the period of suspension beyond retirement and the consequent show cause notice dated 03.12.2019.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the third respondent-

Society in the year 2011 and he reached the position of a Secretary. His superannuation fell on 31.05.2019. In the meantime, the petitioner was suspended from service by an order passed by the President of the third respondent-Society on 31.01.2019. The third respondent also issued a Charge Memo to the petitioner on 06.03.2019. Thereafter, the third respondent passed an order on 29.05.2019 not permitting the petitioner to retire from service and extending his suspension.

3. The sum and substance of the charge that was made against the petitioner was that he continued to pay rent for the building, in which the third respondent-Society was located, when the Society was owning a building. The other charge is that the petitioner is using private software for accounting instead of a common accounting software given by the Government. The further charge is that the petitioner had paid salary and festival advance without the permission of the President of the Society. The final charge is that the attendance register and resolution book contains corrections and deletions.

4. The petitioner has challenged the charge memo and the subsequent order not permitting the petitioner to retire from service by extending his suspension, on the ground that the President of the third respondent-Society does not have the jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings or prevent the petitioner from retiring from service.

5. Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied upon G.O.Ms.No.14, Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 12.02.2019. Under this Government Order, on and from the date when this Government Order comes into force, it is the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who shall be the competent authority to initiate any proceedings as against the persons, who fall under the common cadre. The secretary also falls under the common cadre. The learned counsel submitted that the President of the third respondent-Society did not have the authority or jurisdiction to issue the charge memo after 12.02.2019 and therefore, the charge memo itself is liable to be quashed and the subsequent order passed by the President not permitting the petitioner to retire from service is also liable to be quashed. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon Section 75(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, which provides that where a common cadre of service is constituted in respect of any post, all the employees holding such post on the date of constitution of such common cadre, shall be deemed to have been absorbed in the common cadre of service with effect on and from the date of constitution of such common cadre of service. By relying upon this provision, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner automatically came into common cadre immediately after the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.14, Co-Operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department dated 12.02.2019 and it is the Joint Registrar, who is the competent authority to initiate any proceedings.

6. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit in this case. Apart from explaining the charges against the petitioner, the counter affidavit proceeds on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner when he was placed under suspension on 31.01.2019. Therefore, where the disciplinary proceedings has already commenced, there is a saving clause in the concerned Rule, which provides that the same Rules will continue and the subsequent Government Order will not have any effect in the pending disciplinary proceedings.

7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third resp