A. Tamil Selvi vs The State

K. Chandru, J.—The petitioner has come forward to file the present writ petition challenging the order passed by the second respondent

revisional authority, dated 25.11.2008 and after setting aside the same, seeks for an appropriate orders.

The petitioner was working as a Sales woman in the stores run by the fourth respondent Cooperative society. She was placed under suspension

by an order, dated 5.6.2007. The charge against the petitioner was that 100% audit was done by the Taluk Supply Officer, Thirupattur. It was

found that the petitioner had prepared fictitious bills for disposing of ration articles to the value of Rs. 15,617.40. This is a serious misconduct done

by the petitioner and therefore, she was placed under suspension in public interest for a period of six months. Subsequently, a charge memo was

framed by the fourth respondent, dated 17.7.2007. It was found that the petitioner had caused loss of 826 Kgs. of rice, 116 Kgs. of sugar, 50

Kgs. of Wheat and 409 literes of kerosene.

The petitioner sent a representation, dated 23.07.2007. In her explanation, she had stated that no doubt an audit was done by the Taluk Supply

Officer, and items were sold through duplicate bills, but for certain bills, mistakes might have been made because of the rush. She accepted the

charges levelled against her and had paid an amount of Rs. 15,617/-. She also regretted for the mistakes committed by her and tendered apology.

The fourth respondent, by an order dated 31.5.2008 accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer, dated 16.4.2008. After giving notice and

obtained explanation from the petitioner passed the order dismissing the petitioner. It was found that the act committed by the petitioner was totally

illegal and it cannot be considered as a small offence and she has been continuing to do the same misconduct for three months. Hence she was

dismissed from service on 31.5.2008.

As against the dismissal, the petitioner filed a detailed revision application u/s 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, dated

11.08.2008. The contention raised by the petitioner before the officer concerned was that the enquiry held against the petitioner was not proper

and no witness was examined and no document was also filed. Apart from that the amount was recovered. The statement given by her was

forcibly taken and the enquiry was not conducted in a free and fair manner. The Taluk Supply Officer, who conducted inspection was also not

examined. Therefore, she prayed for setting aside the order.

The revisional authority took up the same as revision petition No. 7708/2008 A2. After notice to the society, by an order, dated 25.11.2008

dismissed the revision petition. Primarily, the officer found that the petitioner had admitted the charges and she has also paid back the amount on

22.6.2007. It is against this order, the present writ petition has been filed as noted already.

The writ petition was admitted on 27.4.2009. In the petition for interim relief, this Court declined to grant any relief. A copy of the enquiry

report was produced by the petitioner, in which a detailed charge sheet including bill numbers and vouchers were also referred to. The petitioner''s

statement in the enquiry accepting the charges were also recorded. It is only in case where charges are denied in the enquiry, the question of going

into further details regarding the misconduct committed by the petitioner will arise. The original file including the statement given by the petitioner

before the enquiry officer was produced. Even for the show cause notice on the proposed penalty, the petitioner has given a reply, dated 5.5.2008

accepting the charges. Therefore, the contention by the petitioner that her statement was forced out of her cannot be believed.

On notice from this Court, the fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 5.4.2010. In paragraph 7 of the counter, it was averred as

follows:

It is also submitted that the fourth respondent herein suspended the petitioner on 05.06.2007 for the serious irregularities committed by her. A

detailed charge memorandum dated 17.07.2007 was issued to her and the petitioner gave her explanation dated 23.07.2007 accepting the

charges against her. The petitioner has also remitted Rs. 15,617.40, being the loss caused to the Government on 22.06.2007. The fourth

respondent on 19.3.2008 ordered a domestic enquiry to be conducted by an independent, retired person. The independent domestic enquiry

officer conducted the enquiry and submitted his report dated 16.04.2008 after duly following the necessary procedures and principles of natural

justice. The domestic enquiry report was communicated to the petitioner by the fourth respondent on 21.04.2008. The petitioner in her reply dated

05.05.2007 again confessed to the irregularities. The petitioner was dismissed from service by the fourth respondent by the proceedings dated

31.05.2008. The petitioner during the course of the entire proceedings had never denied the charges against her nor had raised any objections.

The petitioner was allowed to peruse all the records available in the society pertaining to the enquiry, never pressurised in any manner or prevented

from examining the witnesses. But the petitioner who had not sought for copies of the documents or cross examining the witnesses during the

course of the disciplinary proceedings is now misrepresenting facts.

In the enquiry, the statement of witnesses were also recorded. The statement of one Dhanasekaran, who was the weighman was recorded. The

petitioner did not cross examine the said person. She also gave her statement accepting the charges and asking for leniency.

The counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following judgments:

a) State of Uttaranchal and Others Vs. Kharak Singh, .

b) Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, .

c) State of U.P. and Others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, .

The first judgment was relied upon for the purpose of contending that the enquiry officer himself cannot act as investigator, prosecutor and

judge and documents should be furnished to the employee and witnesses should be examined in his presence. It is not clear as to how this

judgment has got any assistance to the petitioner when defects pointed out by the Supreme Court did not occur in the case of the petitioner.

In the second judgment relied upon by the petitioner i.e. Roop Singh Negi''s case, the very production of documents in the enquiry is not

enough and the documents will have to be proved by examining witnesses and confession before the police cannot be held to be a sufficient

evidence and there must be some evidence to be brought on record to prove the stealing by the chargesheeted employee. In the present case,

witness was examined, who was not cross examined by the petitioner. In her own statement, she has also admitted the charges.

In the third case, it was held that the enquiry officer acting as quasi judicial authority and he should be an independent adjudicator and he

should not act as a prosecutor as well as a judge. He has to examine evidence produced by the department even in the absence of delinquent

official. Such a contingency did not arise in the present case.

Mr. P.S. Sivashanmugasundaram, learned Counsel for fourth respondent per contra placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court

in Sarv U.P. Gramin Bank Vs. Manoj Kumar Sinha, . But, it is unnecessary to go into the details of those cases.

In the present case, it is suffice to state that principles of natural justice has been duly followed. The petitioner not only admitted the charges,

but also had made good the loss. However the payments made by itself cannot absolve the petitioner from serious charges levelled against her.

Though the revisional order impugned in the writ petition is rather summary, this Court, on an independent analyse of all materials, is of the view

that there are no irregularities or infirmities in the impugned order of dismissal passed against the petitioner.

In the light of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.