Court upheld the authority's power to review its decisions, emphasizing adherence to procedural justice in employment termination cases under cooperative statutes.

ORDER

Heard, Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Tamilvendan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 &2 and Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and perused the records.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that she was appointed as Clerk-cum-Accountant in the third respondent society in the year 2003; that she was suspended from service on 03.02.2014 alleging that she was not properly discharging her duties; that the third respondent thereafter had served on her charge memo to which she submitted a detailed explanation; that notwithstanding her detailed explanation, the third respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry and submit report; that the Enquiry Officer after conducting enquiry submitted report on 30.06.2014 holding the charges as proved; and that based on the aforesaid report, the third respondent by the order dated 28.07.2014 terminated her services.

3. The petitioner contended that aggrieved by the above order of the third respondent, she had filed a revision to the first respondent under Section 153(1) of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, (herein after referred as the Act/Act, 1983); and that the first respondent vide order dated 20.03.2015 partly allowed the revision petition by setting aside the order of termination and remitted the matter back to the third respondent to pass order on merit by following the procedure and giving opportunity to the petitioner.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that pending passing of the order afresh, as the third respondent continued her suspension, she had approached this Court and filed W.P.No.17222 of 2015 for payment of Subsistence Allowance including arrears; and that this Court by interim order dated 17.06.2015 directed the respondents to pay Subsistence Allowance from the date of suspension within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and continue to pay the Subsistence Allowance to the petitioner every month regularly.

5. The petitioner contended that consequent upon the order dated 20.03.2015 passed by the first respondent remitting the matter back to the third respondent, the third respondent passed order afresh on 30.11.2015 removing her from service with effect from the date of the said order i.e., on 30.11.2015; that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached the first respondent and filed a revision under Section 153(1) of the Act 1983; that the first respondent by his proceedings dated 19.09.2016 while setting aside the order of termination, modified the punishment to one of stoppage of seven years increment cut with cumulative effect; that on the first respondent passing the aforesaid order setting aside her removal from service, she approached the respondents 2 & 3 and submitted a representation on 24.10.2016 to comply with the said order; that as the said representation submitted did not elicit any response, she has approached this Court by filing Writ Petition vide W.P.No.17222 of 2015 seeking a direction to the respondents 2 & 3 to reinstate her into service in the post of Clerk- cum-Accountant and also to give all monetary benefits and continuity of service together with balance Subsistence Allowance arrears, by implementing the order of the first respondent dated 19.09.2016; and that this Court however, without going into the merits of the matter directed the third respondent to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 24.10.2016 by taking note of the order of the first respondent dated 19.09.2016 in