T. Krishnamurthy vs The Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), Salem Region and No. S-1523, Dr. Ambedhkar Salem City Co-operative House Building Society Ltd.

P. Jyothimani, J.—The petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the impugned orders of

suspension of the petitioner passed by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings dated 21.6.2008, quash the same as null and void and direct the

respondents to treat the period of suspension as duty and pay the salary.

Ms. Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.

Admittedly, the petitioner is an employee of the third respondent Society and whose service is governed by the bye-law framed by the Society

as well as u/s 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order of suspension was made by exercising the power under the bye-law

framed by the third respondent. Actually, the bye-law supersedes the provision of Section 76(1) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act,

1983, which reads as follows:

Suspension of a paid officer or servant of society

(1) where.

(a) in the course of an audit u/s 80 or an inquiry u/s 81 or an investigation u/s 82, or inspection of books u/s 83, it is brought to the notice of the

Registrar that a paid officer or servant of a registered society whether or not he is borne on a common cadre of service has committed or has been

otherwise responsible for misappropriation, breach of trust or other offences in relation to any registered society and if, in the opinion of the

Registrar, there is a prima facie evidence against such paid officer or servant and the suspension of such paid officer or servant is necessary in the

interests of any such society, or

(b) a complaint against any aid officer or servant of any registered society whether or not he is borne on a common cadre of service of any alleged

commission of any other offence involving moral turpitude is pending investigation or trial and if, in the opinion of the Registrar, the suspension of

such paid officer or servant is necessary in the public interest or in the interest of such society.

The Registrar may direct, where the paid officer or servant is borne on a common cadre of service the competent authority constituted under Sub-

section (3) of Section 75, and in other cases, the registered society under which the paid officer or servant is employed, pending such investigation,

trial and disposal of the matter, to place or cause to be placed such paid officer or servant under suspension from such date and for such period as

may be specified by him.

(2) On receipt of a direction from the Registrar under Sub-section (1), the competent authority or the registered society, as the case may be, shall,

notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the Rules or the bye-laws or the order under Sub-section (1) of Section 75, place or cause to be

placed the paid officer or servant under suspension forthwith.

(3) The Registrar may direct the competent authority or the registered society, as the case may be, to extend or cause to be extended, from time to

time, the period of suspension and the paid officer or servant suspended shall not be reinstated except with the previous sanction of the Registrar.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-sections (2) and (3)and without prejudice to the provisions contained in Section 88 if, in the opinion

of the Registrar, the competent authority or any registered society, as the case may be, either wilfully disobeys or wilfully fails to comply with any

direction, issued under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (3), he may, by order, place or cause to be placed the paid officer or servant under

suspension forthwith or extent or cause to be extended from time to time, the period of suspension of such paid officer or servant

The jurisdiction of the authority, who conducts the enquiry either u/s 81 or conducts audit or an inspection or investigation u/s 82 or inspection

of books u/s 83 of the Act. During the course of such inspection, the authority can place any servant of the society under suspension whether falling

under common cadre or otherwise, for misappropriation including breach of trust, which are enumerated under Sections 80, 81, 82 and 83 of the

Act. In the absence of any of those circumstances, it is the bye-law framed, which governs the petitioner. Therefore, on the face of it, there is no

contradiction between the bye-law framed by the third respondent and Section 76(1) of the Act.

In view of the same, the Judgment of the larger Bench in K. Marappan Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies and The Special

Officer, Vattur Co-operative Agricultural Bank, applies to this case.

Under such circumstances, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy

available under the bye-law. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P is closed.