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

2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 95112

MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. SURVARACHAKAN – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Registrar / Arbitrator – Respondent
CRP 3181 2022



CRP.No.3181 of 2022.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved On : 03.03.2023

Delivered On : 28.04.2023

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

CRP.No.3181 of 2022

S.Survarachakan

... Petitioner/Appellant/Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Deputy Registrar/

Arbitrator,

Kancheepuram Region,

Kancheepuram.

2. The Managing Director,

Kancheepuram District Consumer

Co-operative Wholesale Stores,

No.185, Prakasam Salai,

Chennai – 600 108. ... Respondents/Respondents/Respondents

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of

India, to set aside the Order dated 25.04.2022 passed in CMA.No.50/2018

(CNR.No.TNCH09-012419-2017) on the file of the learned Chief Judge,

Court of Small Causes, Chennai, Co-operative Tribunal confirming the

Order passed in the proceeding No.5/2016/A3 dated 20.01.2017 under

Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and allow the CRP.

For Petitioner

: Mr.J.Muthukumaran

1/22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.No.3181 of 2022.

For Respondents

: Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan

Additional Government Pleader for R-1

Dr.S.Suriya

Additional Government Pleader for R-2

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the Order

dated 25.04.2022 passed in CMA.No.50/2018 (CNR.No.TNCH09-012419-

2017) on the file of the learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes,

Chennai, Co-operative Tribunal confirming the Order passed in the

proceeding No.5/2016/A3 dated 20.01.2017 under the Tamil Nadu Co-

operative Societies Act, 1983.

2. This Civil Revision Petition had been filed by the Appellant. The

Petitioner was a salesman before the Co-operative Society. This Petition

had been filed against the surcharge Order passed by the Deputy

Registrar/Arbitrator, Kancheepuram based on the surprise inspection

conducted by the Manager of the Society.

2.1. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of

this Court to the finding of the enquiry Officer imposing surcharge on the

2/22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.No.3181 of 2022.

Petitioner. Aggrieved by the surcharge Order, the Petitioner herein filed

Appeal as per the Provisions of Co-operative Societies Act before the Co-

operative Appellate Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai

in CMA.No.50/2018.

2.2. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that

the Petitioner was employed in the second Respondent Society,

Kanchipuram District Consumer Co-operative Whole Sale Store, No.185,

Prakasam Salai, Chennai.

2.3. The Appellant was working as a salesman in one fair price shop

at Rajaji Nagar from April, 2011 to May, 2014. The second Respondent had

control over the fair price shop in and around the Kanchipuram District.

The second Respondent conducted periodical inspection particularly stock

verification. Apart from that, surprise inspection was conducted by the

Civil Supply Distribution Officer. During those inspection if any deficit

stock was found, immediately memo was issued to the employee calling for

an explanation. During April, 2011 to May, 2014, regular monthly stock

verification was conducted by the second Respondent and no major

3/22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.No.3181 of 2022.

shortage was found and recovered from the shop where the Revision

Petitioner was employed. The second Respondent referred the matter to the

first Respondent with a false allegation and asked them to conduct

inspection. The first Respondent ordered inspection under Section 82 of

Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. One Muthupandian, Sub

Registrar, Co-operative Societies attended as Inspection Officer and

conducted inspection without following the due process of law. After such

inspection, the said Inspection Officer had passed the illegal Orders alleging

that there was some shortage to

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