##PAGE1##

+IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on 01.10.2026 Pronounced on 07 .10.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN WA No. 1878 of 2024 and CMP.No.12316 of 2024 CNR: {HCMA011019242024}

1. The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Cooperation, Food and consumer protection (CL1) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600009.

2. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies No.170, N.V.N Maligai, Kilpauk, Chennai-600010.

3. The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Dindigul Region, Dindugul.

..Appellants Vs P Rajaram S/o.Perumal Raj, NO.45, Erumaikara Street, South Car Street, Dindigul.

..Respondent Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order in WP No.1660/2015 dt. 24.01.2023 and allow the Writ Appeal.

For Appellants: Ms.A.Suganya Additional Government Pleader For Respondent: Ms.J.Lingitha For M/s.M.S.Palaniswamy

JUDGMENT

(KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN,J.)

The unsuccessful respondents in W.P.No.1660 of 2015 are the appellants herein.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the writ petition.

3. The writ petitioner filed W.P.No.1660 of 2015 for the following relief:

"…..to call for the records of the first respondent in G.O.(T)

No.257 dated 03.11.2014, quash the same and direct the respondents to settle the petitioner's retirement benefits with arrears in accordance with law."

4(i). It is the case of the petitioner that he worked as Sub Registrar /

Managing Director of the Dindigul Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society between the period 01.05.2000 and 25.05.2000. It is the further case of the petitioner that at that point in time, the Management of the affairs of the marketing society was entirely done only by the elected Board, and he had no knowledge about sanctioning and disbursing loans. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that only out of compulsion did he subscribe his signature to clear a few accounts, as he could not go against the wishes of the elected Board. The said incidents were communicated to the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Dindigul, on several occasions; however, no action was taken.

(ii) When the facts remained so, the petitioner received a Charge Memo in Na.Ka.No.2515/2003 dated 11.04.2003 from the Deputy Registrar of Co- operative Societies, Dindigul Circle, framing one charge against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The said charge related to irregularities committed during the period from 01.05.2000 to 20.05.2000 regarding the pledge of jewels by customers and a loss to the tune of Rs.2,48,000/-. On the basis of the said charge memo, an inquiry was conducted, and an Inquiry Report dated 08.12.2003 was submitted. Based on the said report, the third respondent imposed a punishment of stoppage of increment for six months with cumulative effect. The said order of punishment was challenged by the writ petitioner before the second respondent, who confirmed the order of punishment vide proceedings in R.C.No.70088/2004/DA3 dated 29.06.2004. As against the order of the second respondent, the petitioner filed a revision before the first respondent. The first respondent dismissed the revision vide G.O.(T) No.57 dated 01.03.2007.

Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.(MD) No.8863 of 2007 before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. This Court, by order dated 06.11.2012, set aside the order of the first respondent and remanded the matter to the first respondent to pass a speaking order based on the facts and circumstances of the case placed before the first respondent. This Court also made it clear that while deciding the issue, the first respondent shall also obtain the opinion of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC). The said order was set aside only on technical grounds and not on merits.

(