IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Muthu Chandra Sekar ..Petitioner Vs

1. The Secretary to the Government, Co operative Food and Consumer Protection Department, Fort St. George, Chennai.

2. The Joint Registrar of Co op Societies, Thoothukudi Region, Thoothukudi.

3. The Special Officer (presently ….), The Nazerath Urban Co operative Bank Ltd, Nazerth, Tuticorin District.

..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari Mandamus calling for the records in G.O. Ms. No.181 dated 18.10.2013 passed by the first respondent, quash the same and direct the third respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits.

For Petitioner : Ms.D.Geetha For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravikumar Special Government Pleader (Co-operaive)

for R1 and R2 Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram for R3

ORDER

The petitioner challenges the order dated 18.10.2013 issued by the first respondent. By the said order, the first respondent, in exercise of its powers under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority dismissing the petitioner from service.

2. The petitioner, while serving as Cashier in the respondent Bank, was issued a charge memo dated 13.08.2002 containing three charges. The first charge alleged that, on 30.07.2002, during the auction of pledged jewellery , the petitioner committed breach of trust. The second charge alleged abetment of misconduct by the Branch Manager. The third charge alleged engagement in illegal acts, thereby tarnishing the reputation of the Bank.

3. The petitioner submitted a reply denying the charges. As the explanation was found to be unsatisfactory, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated.

The Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry, submitted a report holding that the charges against the petitioner were proved. Upon receipt of the enquiry report, the third respondent issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner.

4. The petitioner submitted a further explanation challenging the findings of the Enquiry Officer and contended that relevant documents had not been furnished to him and, therefore, he did not effectively participate in the enquiry. The third respondent, after considering the enquiry report and the further explanation, passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service.

5. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Appellate Authority and thereafter before the Revisional Authority, namely the first respondent. However, the challenge was rejected and the order of dismissal was confirmed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is only that he assisted the Branch Manager, who had allegedly not followed the prescribed procedure in conducting the auction of pledged jewels, thereby tarnishing the reputation of the Bank. It was further submitted that the departmental proceedings initiated against the Branch Manager culminated in dismissal from service, but the said dismissal was set aside by the Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act. The third respondent accepted the said order and disbursed all retirement benefits to the Branch Manager.

7. Therefore, it was contended that there is no material to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner assisted the Branch Manager in violating the prescribed procedure. Hence, the impugned order passed by the third respondent and confirmed by the first respondent is not legally sustainable.

8. Per contra, learned State Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and

2, and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, submitted that the petitioner was duty bound to report the illegal acts of the Branch Manager and that he actively assisted the Branch Manager in committing the said irregularities. It w