C. Govindaraja vs The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai, Dharmapuri District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai

V. Kanagaraj, J.—Mr. K. Kumaresh Babu, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the first respondent.

Writ Petition No.20837 of 2002 praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent connected

to his order dated 10.10.2001 and of the first respondent connected to his order dated 1.2.2002, quash the same and direct the second

respondent to reinstate the petitioner in the original post of Assistant in the service of the second respondent Bank with all backwages, increment,

seniority and other attendant benefits from the date of suspension, i.e. 10.10.2001.

Writ Petition No.20838 of 2002 praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the second respondent connected

to the charge memo. dated 5.11.2001 and quash the same.

For easy reference, W.P. Nos.20837 and 20838 of 2002 are hereinafter referred to as the first and second writ petition.

These two writ petitions have been filed by one and the same petitioner stating that while he was working as the Secretary in Mottupatti Primary

Agricultural Cooperative Bank Limited, for certain allegations of misappropriation, he was placed under suspension as it comes to be seen from

the order dated 10.10.2001, which is impugned in the first writ petition and also issued with a charge memo. dated 05.11.2001 as it is seen from

the second writ petition impugned therein. It is only challenging both the suspension order and the charge memo. respectively, these writ petitions

have been filed.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, resorting to Section 153 of Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act 1983, would allege

that a revision petition filed before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies had been returned on the ground that the suspension order being an

interim order, it cannot be taken as a final order passed so as to empower him to entertain a revision of that sort and the learned counsel would

argue to the effect that under the relevant provision of law, he cannot refuse to receive a revision petition and pass orders in consideration of the

same.

A perusal of Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 would clearly show that it is a discretion generally granted

empowering the Registrar in certain specific matters and the same cannot be taken as of right to file a revision against the suspension order by the

petitioner, and therefore, the petitioner cannot take shelter under the cover of this Section and claim that it is incumbent on the part of the Registrar

to receive a revision against the suspension order and dispose of the same on an enquiry conducted. Therefore, this contention is rejected.

So far as the actual reliefs that are claimed in both the writ petitions to quash the order of suspension and the charge memo. are concerned, it is

made clear that it is a case of misappropriation of a sum of Rs.1,35,962.65 by the petitioner and a criminal proceeding is also initiated in Crime

No.11/2002 dated 28.8.2002, which is being tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Oothangarai as per C.C. No.2/96. In these circumstances,

the charge memo. has been issued on the disciplinary proceeding instituted and hence, such a serious case cannot be taken so lightly as it has been

argued on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner so as to quash the proceeding itself.

The learned counsel would further raise a question to the effect that for certain irregularities said to have been committed in a different Bank, the

disciplinary proceeding is contemplated by the present Bank, for which the learned Government Advocate (Cooperatives) would show from the

reference that the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Dharmapuri, is fully empowered to initiate such measures against a delinquent, and

therefore, such an argument cannot hold water for passing any order at this initial stage of enquiry. Hence, this plea of the petitioner is also

rejected.

In short, this is a serious disciplinary enquiry that is contemplated against the petitioner, pertaining to which, the authorities have rightly placed

him under suspension and have proceeded against the petitioner on a domestic enquiry, and it cannot be either said that such an enquiry is irregular

or against law or arbitrarily instituted against the petitioner without any material to show for such an enquiry to be stalled. Hence, these two writ

petitions are liable only to be dismissed and they are dismissed accordingly.

In result, both the above writ petitions are without merit and they are dismissed as such. No costs.