IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.03.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE.N.MALA W.P.No.3804 of 2022 and WMP.No.3928 of 2022 A.Balakrishnan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Co-opeartion, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. … Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent made in G.O.(D).No.200, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 14.12.2021 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram For Respondents : Mrs.M.Geetha Thamaraiselvan Special Government Pleader * * * * *

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed to call for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent made in G.O.(D).No.200, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 14.12.2021 and to quash the same.

2.The petitioner was working as an Administrator from 18.03.2013 to

16.07.2013, and as Managing Director from 17.07.2013 to 14.08.2014, in Kancheepuram District Consumers' Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. Whileso, an unfortunate fire accident occurred on 10.07.2013, at its Tondiarpet Godown, for which an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, was ordered. Thereafter a charge memo was issued to the petitioner invoking the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules and the same reads as follows:

“1.For not producing the records required for enquiry and not taking action to reconstruct the record which was destroyed by the fire accident.

2.for not insuring the building and furniture and fittings in the Tondiarpet godown of the Kancheepuram whole sale stores for the year 2012-13.”

Upon the explanation to the charges submitted by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authorities converted the charges from Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules to 17(a) of the above said Rule. Based on the enquiry report, the second respondent imposed punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of one year (excluding the leave period) without cumulative effect vide order dated 24.08.2018. The petitioner challenged the same before the first respondent and the first respondent confirmed the order passed by the second respondent vide order dated 12.02.2020. The petitioner thereafter filed a review petition before the first respondent, but the same was rejected vide the impugned order dated 14.12.2021. Aggrieved by the impugned order the petitioner filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

3.The respondents failed to file a counter but the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents opposed the writ petition on the basis of the written instructions.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order deserved to be set aside on the short ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The learned counsel submitted that the appellate authority viz., the first respondent consulted the TNPSC and relying on the views of the TNPSC, passed the order confirming the punishment imposed by the second respondent. The learned counsel submitted that even without furnishing a copy of the TNPSC report to the petitioner, the first respondent straight away passed the impugned order, in total violation of the principles of natural justice and hence on this ground alone the impugned order was liable to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondents discriminated against the petitioner, by targeting him alone, while exonerating three officials who were also equally responsible for the lapses. The learned counsel therefore prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the writ petition allowed.

5.The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents on the basis of the instructions, submitted that as the petit