P. Pathirappan vs The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing) and The Enquiry Officer, Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Regular)

D. Hariparanthaman, J.—The Petitioner was a Co-operative Sub-Registrar. During the relevant time, he was holding the post of Co-

operative Sub Registrar (Inspection) in 11 societies and Special Officers in 11 co-operative societies in 3 districts. He was holding the post of

Special Officer (in charge) of Vadipatti Co-operative Housing Society. The Vadipatti Cooperative Housing Society is one among the 11 societies

referred to above. While so, he was issued a charge memo dated 03.10.2003 under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and

Appeal) Rules. The following charges were made against him.

(i) The Petitioner disbursed a sum of Rs. 1,29,476/- to a person who had not created the asset equivalent to the Housing loan amount.

(ii) The Petitioner prepared the loan file for the M. No. 564 with bogus documents, obtained a loan of Rs. 1,40,000/- from the Housing Federation

and disbursed this amount to the another member.

(iii) The Petitioner disbursed the Housing loan of Rs. 6,47,380/- to five members. The members are found to bogus. As per the procedure, the

loan amount should be disbursed only after the constructive up to the basement level. But it was found that the sites are kept vacant.

(iv) The Petitioner issued a sum of Rs. 53,20,000/- to the 38 members as the Housing loan. The income certificate, Age certificate, Building plan

approval certificate which are attached with loan files are found to be bogus.

(v) The Petitioner had certified in these loan files that he had visited the site on 2.4.2002 and found that houses are constructed upto the basement

level. But it was found that no building is constructed in these sites and also the Petitioner did not visit the site on 2.4.2002.

(iv) The address, profession, and other particulars found in the loan application are found to be false. But the Petitioner certified in the loan files that

he enquired the members and satisfied with their particulars.

(vii) The Petitioner disbursed a sum of Rs. 53,20,000/- to the 38 members who are not having the capacity to repay the loan. But in the loan

application the above member were classified as the higher income group and it was also certified by the Petitioner. After the disbursement of Rs.

53,20,000/- single instalment and interest is not recovered from these members.

(viii) As per the procedure, a person should have the own house or site in his name to be admitted as member in the Housing society. But the

Petitioner admitted the above 38 persons as member in the Vadipatti Housing society. The Petitioner is involved in the misappropriation of Rs.

53,20,000 and he had violated all the norms and procedures in the issue of loan.

The Petitioner did not submit any explanation to the above said charge memo. The 3rd Respondent was appointed as Enquiry Officer. In the

enquiry, the Petitioner was put certain questions. Thereafter, the Enquiry was closed. Nobody was examined and no documents were marked. The

enquiry officer submitted a report dated 25.10.2004 holding that all the charges are established. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the

Petitioner was dismissed by an order dated 27.06.2005. The writ Petitioner has filed the present writ petition to quash the aforesaid dismissal

order dated 27.06.2005.

The 1st Respondent filed counter affidavit repudiating the allegations.

In the counter affidavit, it is admitted that the Petitioner appeared for oral enquiry on 31.08.2004 and he gave his deposition. Based on the

same, the Enquiry Officer found that the charges were established. It is stated that the Petitioner did not make any specific request to cross

examine any witness or to adduce evidence to defend himself. He did not ask for any documents. It is also stated that it was open to the Petitioner

to apply for perusal of records before the Enquiry proceedings. He did not even submit explanation to the charge memo. The counter affidavit

seeks for the dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents.

The Petitioner was issued a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The allegations made in

the charge memo are very serious. The Charge memo contains the list of witnesses in annexure 4 . Further the list of documents that are to be

relied on in the Enquiry are stated in annexure 3 of the charge memo. But, admittedly in the enquiry, no witness was examined and no documents

were marked. The Petitioner alone was straight away examined and statements were recorded from him. In my view, such a procedure is contrary

to Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The following passage in Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services

(Discipline and Appeal) Rules is extracted hereunder.

Even if a person charged has waived an oral inquiry, such inquiry shall be held by the authority concerned in respect of charges which are not

admitted by the person charged and which can be proved only through the evidence of witnesses. At that inquiry oral evidence shall be heard as to

such of the allegations as are not admitted, and the person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses to give evidence in person and

to have such witnesses called, as he may wish, provided that the officer conducting the inquiry may for special and sufficient reason to be recorded

in writing, refuse to call a witness.

Further, it is well settled that the minimum ingredients of a valid enquiry is that the department should let in evidence in support of the charges in

the presence of the employee and the delinquent should be given opportunity to cross examine those witnesses and thereafter, the delinquent

should be given an opportunity to let in evidence, if any and further that the relevant document should be produced and marked in the enquiry and

the documents if any required by the delinquent should also be furnished to him. But none of the ingredients of a valid enquiry is present in this

case.

In such circumstances, I am inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is

allowed. The matter is remanded back to the 2nd Respondent to conduct proper and valid enquiry by giving all reasonable opportunities to the

Petitioner and to complete the same as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is disposed of with the above terms. No costs.