AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Banumathi, J.—This intra-court appeal is preferred against the order dated 14.9.2011 passed in W.P.(MD) No. 10434 of 2011
dismissing the Writ Petition and declining to quash the Charge Memo dated 20.04.2011. The appellant has been working as Secretary of the
second respondent society, which is a Co-operative Institution registered under the Tamil Nadu Co- operative Societies Act and the rules made
thereunder. The object of the second respondent society is to promote welfare of its agrarian members by way of lending agricultural loans and
also by way of issuing jewel loan, consumer loan, loan on deposit to the members of the society. As per the bye-law of the society, the appellant
being Secretary of the second respondent society was responsible for day-to-day affairs of the society.
The charge against the appellant is that he misused his powers by fabricating records of the society and by tampering records issued forgery loan
from 1992 to 1999 and from 1999 to 2002 in the name of the employees of Viswabharathy Textile Mills and thereby, intentionally
misappropriated funds of the society to the tune of Rs. 50,76,762/- . It is further alleged that the appellant actually issued only 32 loans but created
records as if 160 loans were issued and nearly 134 loans were issued bogusly. When the Tamil Nadu Government introduced waiver scheme in
2009, the appellant being the Secretary of the society is said to have given false information to the Special Officer and Circle Supervisors of the
Central Co-operative Bank, Dindigul by stating that nearly 134 loans were covered under the scheme. Suspecting serious misconduct, the
appellant was placed under suspension vide order dated 30.6.2010.
The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies passed an order to conduct enquiry u/s 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act by
appointing a Co-operative Sub-Registrar as Enquiry Officer. During Section 81 enquiry, though the appellant was asked to appear before the
Enquiry Officer, the appellant did not appear. After conclusion of section 81 enquiry, it was learnt that the appellant had committed serious
misconduct and hence the second respondent initiated disciplinary action against the appellant. The Charge Memo dated 20.4.2011 was issued to
the appellant calling for explanation. The appellant did not submit his explanation and an advocate was appointed as Enquiry Officer.
The appellant preferred Writ Petition (MD) No. 6548 of 2011 before the High Court on 29.06.2011 alleging that he was not furnished copies
of the documents, sought for a Mandamus directing the second respondent to proceed domestic enquiry after permitting the petitioner/appellant to
peruse the records and to submit his explanation. By the order dated 29.6.2011, the learned single Judge directed the second respondent to
furnish all the documents to the petitioner/appellant and to commence disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner and to pass
appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order made in the
Writ Petition. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 7.7.2001 to furnish copies of certain documents so as to enable him to submit
his explanation. The second respondent issued copies of records seized during the enquiry u/s 81 and photo-copy of some records were also
served. Enquiry notice dated 5.8.2011 was sent to the appellant calling upon the appellant to appear for enquiry on 24.8.2011. The appellant had
sent his reply dated 22.8.2011 stating that copies of some more documents were not furnished to him. In his reply dated 24.8.2011, the second
respondent stated that certain documents sought for by the appellant were not available in the society. On receipt of the said reply, the appellant
again sent a further reply dated 6.9.2011 reiterating his request for the supply of copies of documents. By the proceedings dated 7.9.2011, the
second respondent stated that copies of available documents were already furnished to him and called upon the appellant to appear for enquiry
before the Enquiry Officer on 21.9.2011 failing which the enquiry would be proceeded ex-parte.
Instead of appearing in the enquiry proceedings, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 10434 of 2011 seeking to quash the Charge Memo dated
20.4.2011 on the ground that the documents relating to the charges were not furnished to him and that the respondents have already pre-
determined to terminate the appellant from service.
The learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition observing that merely because some of the documents were not allegedly furnished to the
appellant, the Charge Memo cannot be quashed. Referring to a number of decisions and the decision in Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs.
Kunisetty Satyanarayana, the learned Judge held that the Writ Petition should not be entertained and that issuing of charge sheet cannot be said to
be without jurisdiction or illegal.
Challenging the impugned order, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. V.O.S. Kalaiselvam, contended that in order to disprove the charges
levelled against the appellant, the appellant sought for copies of documents - Pay Certificate, Loan Application of the Members with Undertakings
given by Viswabharathy Textile Mills Management and that these are the basic documents based on which the appellant can prove that the loans
were issued only after following due procedure as required for issuance of loan. It was further contended that by non-furnishing of these
documents, there is denial of opportunity to the appellant to disprove the charges levelled against him. It was further contended that the learned
Judge failed to consider that the respondents disputed the signature in cheque leaves saying that they are forged and unless documents shown
above are produced, the signatures in cheque leaves cannot be substantiated and refusal of the respondents to give copies of the documents to the
appellant is in violation of the principles of natural justice and the learned Judge ought to have quashed the Charge Memo on that ground.
According to the respondents, copies of certain documents relied upon by the second respondent were given to the appellant. Further
contention of the respondents is that Pay Certificates, Loan Application of the Members and the alleged Undertakings given by Viswabharathy
Textile Mills are not available and therefore, they could not be furnished.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the documents.
The point falling for consideration is whether the Charge Memo issued to the appellant is liable to be quashed?
After the disposal of the earlier Writ Petition in W.P.(MD) No. 6548 of 2011, the appellant vide letter dated 7.7.2011 sought for the following
documents:-
The Pay Certificates, loan applications, undertakings given u/s.48 of the Act, Loan Disbursement Registers, Loan Ledger (Format-1) for the
year 1999- 2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 (relating to 134 employees of the Vishwabarathy Textiles of Vadamadurai).
The cheque leaves for disbursement of loan to 134 employees as in serial No. 1
Cash books in respect of the loan disbursement made to 134 employees during the year 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002.
In the reply dated 5.8.2011, the second respondent stated that Loan Ledgers and Disbursement Registers are available and that the appellant
was asked to peruse the same and get copies. Likewise, the appellant was asked to get copies of cheque leaves and also cash receipts for the year
1999-2000, 2000- 2001, 2001-2002. In the said proceedings, the second respondent also indicated that the appellant himself had not handed
over Pay Certificates, Loan Applications shown as Item No. I in his representation dated 7.7.2011.
Again the appellant had sent letter dated 22.8.2011. The appellant raised objection to the stand of the second respondent that certain
documents were not at all handed over by the appellant. In response to the said letter, the second respondent sent the proceedings dated
24.8.2011 stating that the copies of the following documents were furnished to him. The details of copies of the documents furnished to the
appellant are as follows:-
In the said proceedings dated 24.8.2011, it was again reiterated that Item No. 1 as requested in the appellant''s letter dated 7.7.2011 are not
available in the society.
Thereafter, the appellant had again sent the representation dated 5.9.2011 reiterating his demand. The second respondent in the proceedings
dated 7.9.2011 stated that copies of available documents were already furnished to the appellant and directed the appellant to appear before the
Enquiry Officer on 21.9.2011, failing which the matter will be proceeded ex-parte. Without appearing in the enquiry proceedings, the appellant
filed the Writ Petition seeking to quash the Charge Memo on the ground that the copies of certain documents were not furnished to him.
As elaborated earlier, available copies of documents were already furnished to the appellant. The second respondent clearly stated that the
other documents were not available and therefore, could not furnished. In such circumstances, the appellant cannot make grievance of the matter.
In any event, non-furnishing of copies of certain documents cannot be a ground for quashing the charges.
The appellant seeks to quash the Charge Memo dated 20.4.2011. He is yet to reply to the charges. Mere issuance of show cause notice of
Charge Memo does not infringe the right of any one. Ordinarily, Writ Petition should not be entertained against show cause notice or charge
memo.
In Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, , the respondent therein was issued Charge Memo for availing reservation
against the post ear-marked for ST category though he did not belong to the said category. Instead of submitting reply to the Charge Memo, he
preferred Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which disposed of the same with a direction to the respondent to submit
his explanation to the Charge Memo and the disciplinary authority was directed to consider his name. Instead of filing reply, the respondent filed a
Writ Petition which came to be allowed. Challenging the same, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court. In Paragraph Nos.13, 14 and
16, the Supreme Court held as follows:-
It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive
Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh and Ors [JT 1995 (8) SC 33], The Special Director and Another Vs. Mohd.
Ghulam Ghouse and Another, , Ulagappa and Ors. v. Divisional Commr., Mysore and Ors. [ 2001 (10)SCC 639], State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.
Brahm Datt Sharma and Another, etc.
The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the
writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does
not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It
is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the
proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed. A
mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of anyone. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise
adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance.
No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases, the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly
without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily, the High Court should not interfere in such a matter.
Since the appellant seeks to quash the Charge Memo, the ratio of the above decision is squarely applicable to the case on hand. The learned
single Judge rightly declined to quash the Charge Memo and dismissed the Writ Petition. We do not find any reason warranting interference with
the order of the learned single Judge. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.