A dismissal order is legally unsustainable and violates the principles of natural justice if the disciplinary authority fails to independently apply its mind to the employee's explanation or ignores binding findings from related proceedings that exonerate the employee of the charges.

This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his Revision No.852/2012/Sa.Pa, dated 01.06.2012 whereby confirming the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings No.Nil, dated 27.01.2012 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to disburse the petitioner’s retirement benefits like as Gratuity, Provident Fund, Special Provident Fund, Earned Leave Benefits.

ORDER

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 01.06.2012 passed by the first respondent in Revision No.852/2012/Sa.Pa. confirming the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 27.01.2012, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service.

2. The petitioner, while serving as Secretary in the second respondent Society, was issued a charge memo dated 11.06.2011 alleging that he had misappropriated a sum of Rs.10,42,792.48/- and Rs.9,25,000/- respectively. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges. However, not being satisfied with the explanation, the second respondent initiated departmental enquiry proceedings. The petitioner participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, after recording the statement of the petitioner and upon appreciation of the materials on record, returned a finding that the charges stood proved.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued a second show cause notice. The Disciplinary Authority, after considering the enquiry report, passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 153(8) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act before the first respondent. The first respondent, by order dated 01.06.2012, confirmed the order of dismissal. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

4. M/s.Elizabeth Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that on similar allegations, surcharge proceedings were initiated to recover the alleged loss caused to the Society. The same was challenged before this Court in C.R.P. No.4117 of 2017. In the said proceedings, this Court categorically held that, when responsibility for maintenance of records had been fixed on two other individuals, the conclusion that the petitioner was responsible for misappropriation based on illegal withdrawal of amounts was unsustainable. It was further held that the cheque amounts had been withdrawn in the year 2010 by the said two individuals and, therefore, the charge against the petitioner was not proved. Hence, in the absence of evidence establishing that the petitioner was responsible either for maintenance of records or for the alleged withdrawals, the impugned dismissal order is legally unsustainable.

5. Per contra, Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent, submitted that the materials on record clearly establish misappropriation and that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on evidence. In the absence of perversity or arbitrariness, the punishment of dismissal does not warrant interference.

6. The learned State Counsel appearing for the first respondent reiterated the submissions made on behalf of the second respondent and sought dismissal of the Writ Petition.

7. The submissions made on eith