P.Ravichandran vs General Manager And Others

Abdul Quddhose, J

By consent of both the parties, this writ petition has been taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

2.This writ petition has been filed challenging the demand letter dated 18.11.2022 issued by the first respondent and addressed to the second respondent.

3.As per the impugned letter, the first respondent has directed the second respondent to deduct the award amount together with interest from and out of the salary payable to the petitioner by the third respondent Society.

4.It is now brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that total amount claimed by the first respondent from the petitioner as on 17.11.2022 is Rs.2,24,480.60. The petitioner was earlier Secretary of the third respondent Society and while he was a Secretary, it is alleged that he had sold goods at a lesser price. Surcharge proceedings were initiated against him under the Co-operative Societies Act and an award has been passed against him for a sum of Rs.1,94,075.60 together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred a Statutory Appeal in C.M.A. (CS) No.20 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Judge and Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases, Tiruppur. The petitioner has also filed a Stay Petition in the said Appeal seeking stay of the impugned award passed under the Co-operative Societies Act against him. The said petition is still pending consideration by the Principal District Judge and Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases, Tiruppur. Pending the Statutory Appeal, the petitioner has received the impugned demand letter issued by the first respondent dated 18.11.2022 and addressed to the second respondent, calling upon the second respondent to deduct from and out of the petitioner's salary in six instalments the sum of Rs.1,94,075.60 together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum as per the award passed against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

5.Heard Mr.S.Umapathy,  learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.Ravi Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader, who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.K.Tippu Sulthan, learned Government Advocate, who accepts notice on behalf of the third respondent.

6.There cannot be two parallel proceedings, i.e., one before the Appellate Court in C.M.A. (CS) No.20 of 2021 before the Principal District Judge and Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases, Tiruppur and the other before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the petitioner apprehends that at any moment, the impugned demand letter will be enforced and it will be detrimental to his interest. The petitioner also claims that he is no way liable to pay the award amount on the ground that only pursuant to a Board Resolution passed by the third respondent Society when the petitioner was a Secretary, the goods were sold at the price mentioned therein. The petitioner also claims that his salary is too meagre and if the amounts are deducted from his salary, he will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.

7.Considering the aforementioned factors, the only limited relief that can be granted by this Court is to give interim protection for a limited period of one month till the petitioner exhausts all his remedies before the Appellate Court i.e. before the Principal District Judge and Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases, Tiruppur in C.M.A. (CS) No.20 of 2021 with regard to the Stay Petition filed by him.

8.For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the first respondent to keep the impugned demand letter dated 18.11.2022, addressed to the second respondent, in abeyance for a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in the event of failure the petitioner to seek stay of the Award before the Principal District Judge and Special Tribunal for Co-operative Cases, Tiruppur, within that time, the respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner to enforce the Award passed against him in the manner known to them under law. Consequently, connected W.M.Ps stand closed. No costs.