IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

& WMP No.11348 of 2018

1. V.Balasubramaniam,

S/o.Velusamy,

Varaparathi Kadu,

Pollachi Taluk,

Coimbatore District-642 120

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Registrar Of Cooperative

Societies, Chennai

2.The Joint Registrar Of

Cooperative Societies,

Coimbatore Region, Coimbatore

3.The Special Officer,

Tp Spl.50, Senguttaipalayam Primary

Agricultural Cooperative Credit

Society,

Senguttaipalayam Po.,

Negamam Via., Pollachi Tk.,

Coimbatore-642 120

Respondent(s)

PRAYER:

This petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the third respondent in connection with the order dismissing the petitioner from service in proceedings NIL dated 11.09.2012 and the order passed by the second respondent in revision petition

no.9113/2012/VA2 dated 19.08.2013 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all service and monetary benefits.

For Petitioner(s): M/s.S.Selvathirumurugan For Respondent(s): Mr.M.Muthusamy, GA for RR1 & 2 M/s. A.M.Ayyadurai, GA for R3

ORDER

The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 11.09.2012 passed by the third respondent dismissing the petitioner from service, and the order dated 19.08.2013 passed by the second respondent in Revision Petition No.9113 of 2012/V2, under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, confirming the order of dismissal.

2. The petitioner, while working as a Clerk in the third respondent society, was issued with a charge memo dated 12.05.2012. The charge against the petitioner was that, during his tenure as Clerk/Cashier, he had misappropriated the society’s funds to the tune of Rs.14,02,439/-. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges, which was found to be unsatisfactory. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was initiated, and the Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry, submitted a report holding that the charge against the petitioner stood proved.

3. The third respondent issued a second show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to submit his further explanation. In response, the petitioner challenged the findings of the Enquiry Officer and stated that the alleged misappropriated amount had not been reimbursed by his brother. The third respondent, after considering the enquiry report, passed the impugned order of dismissal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The second respondent dismissed the said revision petition, confirming the order of dismissal passed by the third respondent. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the third respondent society had not examined any witnesses nor produced any documents to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner had misappropriated the society’s funds. He further submitted that the petitioner’s brother appeared before the Enquiry Officer and categorically denied having reimbursed the alleged misappropriated amount to the society. It was also contended that the impugned order passed by the third respondent does not disclose any independent application of mind and that the order, having been passed without assigning reasons, is a non-speaking order, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the materials placed before the Enquiry Officer clearly established that the petitioner, while serving as Clerk/Cashier, had misappropriated the society’s funds. It was further submitted that the petitioner had admitted his guilt, which is evident from the fact that his brother had reimbursed the misappropriated amount in the absence of the petitioner. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the impug