SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 66095

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Dr Justice D.NAGARJUN
The Management – Appellant
Versus
The Authority Under the – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 10/7/2024 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Dr.JUSTICE D.NAGARJUN Writ Petition No.17600 of 2020 a n d W.M.P.Nos.21818 of 2020 & 6752 of 2020 The Management K 797 Kongalnagaram Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ltd rep. By its Administrator Kongalnagaram Village & Post Udumalpettai Taluk Tiruppur District. ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Authority under the Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act/

Assistant Commissioner (Labour)

Coimbatore.

2. G. Gunasekaran ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the order passed by the first respondent in PSA No.5 of 2017 dated 11/12/2019 and quash the same.

For petitioner ... Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy For respondents ... Mr.R.U.Dinesh Raj Kumar Additional Government Pleader for R.1 Mr.Balan Haridas for R.2. - - - - - -

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the order passed by the first respondent in PSA No.5 of 2017 dated

11/12/2019 and to quash the same.

2. The facts as per the affidavit enclosed to the writ petition are as under:-

The second respondent was working as Secretary of the petitioner/Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited. He has worked in the Society from 1/5/2009 to 5/1/2015. The second respondent and the elected Board of Management colluded and has committed serious irregularities in the affairs of the petitioner Society. An enquiry was conducted, on 12/2/2005, under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act.

3. A report has been submitted on 20th August 2015 giving a finding that the second respondent and others have committed irregularities and misappropriated a sum of Rs.11,87,98,833/-. Disciplinary action has been initiated against the second respondent and others. Surcharge proceedings and criminal proceedings have also been initiated. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Dharapuram Circle has passed the surcharge order on 12/5/2017 under Section 87 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, for a sum of Rs.9,14,45,603/- against second respondent and others. Some amounts were also recovered from the second respondent. A case in Crime No.4 of 2015 has been registered under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code against the second respondent on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore.

4. The second respondent was suspended from service on 6/1/2015 and charge memo was issued on 13/7/2016. Enquiry Officer has submitted a report on 22/2/2017 finding that charges framed against the second respondent were proved, thereby after completing the formalities, the petitioner Society has passed final order on 6/3/2017 dismissing the second respondent from service.

5. The second respondent has approached the first respondent authority under the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981, claiming subsistence allowance for the period during which he was under suspension. The said application was entertained by the first respondent authority/Assistant Commissioner of Labour in PSA No.5 of 2017 and impugned order was passed on 11/12/2019, directing the petitioner Society to pay subsistence allowance of Rs.5,65,483/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

6. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the petitioner Society did not pay a single pie towards the subsistence allowance, after placing the petitioner under suspension, and that enquiry pursuant to the charge memo was conducted without paying subsistence allowance, which is in violation of principles of natural justice. It is further stated that the petitioner Society did not choose to let in evidence to prove the allegation as if the petitioner was having managerial/supervisory nature of work.

7. Heard Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.U.Dinesh Raj Kumar, learned Additional Government P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top