M. Murugan vs The Deputy Registrar of Co-op. Societies and The Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies

K. Chandru, J.—Heard both sides. All the five writ petitions were filed by the same petitioner. The petitioner, who was working as Co-

operative Sub Registrar, has filed the first four writ petitions challenging the charge memos framed under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil

Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

The first writ petition challenges the charge memo, dated 7.7.2005, the second writ petition challenges the charge memo, dated 1.8.2005, the

third one challenges the charge memo, dated 2.2.2006 and the fourth writ petition challenges the charge memo, dated 12.1.2006. When the first

three writ petitions came up on 19.2.2007, this Court admitted the writ petition and granted an interim stay on the same day. When the fourth writ

petition came up on 07.11.2006, that writ petition was merely directed it to be posted along with previous three writ petitions and no interim order

was granted.

In the meanwhile, the petitioner on being issued with an enquiry notice on 4.7.2009 intimating that a domestic enquiry is to be held on

15.7.2009, has come forward to file the fifth writ petition. By that time, the petitioner has reached the age of superannuation. When the fifth writ

petition came up on 22.7.2009, notice was directed to be ordered to the respondents. This Court granted status quo on the ground that the

enquiry officer appointed was not competent to conduct an enquiry as he is only holding the post of Deputy Registrar. On behalf of the

respondents, in the first three writ petitions, a common counter affidavit, dated 24.4.2009 was filed.

Mr. S. Venkataraman, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was holding the post of Co-operative Sub

Registrar. He was working on foreign service terms as a Special Officer in the Tiruppattur Town Cooperative Bank Ltd. He had reached the age

of superannuation on 31.1.2005. There were enquiries orders against the workers of the Co-operative society, in which the petitioner was a

Special Officer, u/s 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. Even while it was pending, the petitioner was awaiting orders for permitting

him to retire from service. However, on 28.01.2005, he was recalled from the foreign service to his parent department. He was placed under

suspension under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, pending enquiry. Even though it was stated that there

were four enquiries pending u/s 81, according to the petitioner, there was only one enquiry. It was further stated that the enquiry officer who was

directed to conduct enquiry was holding equivalent rank and that the petitioner may not get justice from that person. In that view of the matter, he

has filed the present writ petitions. In respect of the charge memos, he has stated that charges were framed once again by the Deputy Registrar,

who is not competent to frame such charge memos.

In the counter affidavit, it was stated that the petitioner was earlier working as Managing Direcvtor of Vaniambadi Town Cooperative Bank and

subsequently, as the Special Officer. During his tenure, he had sanctioned irregular loans, thereby the Bank was put to heavy financial loss, which

led ordering an enquiry u/s 81. When the petitioner was working as Special Officer of Tiruppattur Town Cooperative Bank, he was placed under

suspension with effect from 31.1.2005. Though the petitioner was working on foreign service terms, his immediate superior was the Deputy

Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Tiruppattur. It was further stated that the Deputy Registrar has power to frame charges.

It was further stated that witnesses will be produced in the departmental enquiry and the petitioner can have an opportunity of cross examining

them and prove his innocence. The enquiry against the petitioner could not be completed because of his non cooperation.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had moved the Government under the Right To Information Act and got

answers in respect of two queries, by a communication, dated 28.4.2008, which are as follows:

A Government servant was suspended lt on theSubject to the presumption that the Disciplinary

date of superannuation. I want to know whether action against a Government Servant suspended

disciplinary action against him can be initiated by on the date of superannuation and his services

the last pay drawing officer or charges can be retained under FR.56(i)(c) can be taken only by

framed against him only by the appointing the appointing/disciplinary authority.

authority.

I may also be let known whether charges can A Government servant whose services are

be framed against such a Government servant for retained under FR 56(i)(c) the limitation of four

cause of action that arose four years before the years period will not apply and charges can be

date of superannuation through he is in extension framed for the entire event of his career.

of service under FR 54(c).

In respect of the first query, the petitioner contends that under FR 56(i)(c), action can be taken only by the appointing/disciplinary authority.

Therefore, he says that the Deputy Registrar is not the appointing authority and he could not have initiated proceedings under Rule 56(i)(c) of the

Fundamental Rules. On the short ground, he wants all the writ petitions to be allowed.

Per contra, Mr. A. Arumugam, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that disciplinary action is covered by the Tamil Nadu Civil

Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Even in respect of a person, whose services were placed at the disposal of any company or corporation

or organisation, he will be deemed to be a member of civil services as per Rule 2 of the said Rules. He also submitted that under Rule 9(c), the

Governor or any other authority empowered by him by general or special order can institute disciplinary proceedings against a Government

servant.

The 6th proviso to Rule 12 reads as follows:

Provided also that all authorities directly higher to the members holding the posts included in the State Services may frame charges against such

members of the State Services under Rule 17 (b) or issue show cause notice under Rule 17(a) even if they are not the competent authority to

impose the penalty and they may conduct the inquiry themselves or request the competent authority to appoint an inquiry officer to conduct the

inquiry....

Therefore, he submitted that so long as the first respondent is a superior authority, he is empowered under the rule to frame charges and conduct

enquiry and the petitioner''s objections are baseless.

At this stage of the charge memo, the protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India may not arise. It is only at the time of penalty,

it will have to be seen whether the appointing authority had passed the orders of dismissal. In the absence of any prohibition under the rule and the

respondents having empowered to frame charges and conduct enquiry, this Court is not inclined to interfere with any of the writ petitions. There

can be no loss of face within the department for the petitioner as he is no longer in service. The following pronouncements of the Supreme Court

will make the position clear:

a) Khem Chand Vs. The Union of India (UOI )and Others,

b) Union of India v. J.A. Munaff 1968 FLR 14 (SC)

c) Inspector General of Police and another Vs. Thavasiappan,

In the light of the above, all the five writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petitions stand closed.