IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20-06-2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

WP No.18809 of 2014

And

MP Nos.2 and 3 of 2014

P.Vengatachalam

...Petitioner

vs.

1. The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies,

Krishnan Region/Revisional Authority,

24/43, 4^th Street, Joint Road,

Cooperative Colony,

Krishnagiri – 635 001.

2. Kaarappattu Primary Agricultural Cooperative

Credit Society Ltd., S978, Represented by

its Special Officer,

Kaarappattu Post,

Uthangarai Taluk,

Krishnagiri District.

...Respondents

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order

passed by the second respondent in his proceedings dated

25.10.2010 and confirmed by the first respondent/ revisional

authority in his proceedings Na.Ka.466/2011 Sa.Pa. Dated

25.03.2013 and quash the same and reinstate the petitioner into

service with all service and monetary benefits.

For Petitioner

: Mr.M.Thangaraju

For Respondent-1 : Ms.S.Anitha,

Special Government Pleader.

For Respondent-2 : Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy

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.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

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 expl