AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Murugesan, J.—This writ appeal questions the Order in the writ petition, dated 22.11.2002. The Management of T.N. Spl. 139
Vasudevanallur Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Bank Limited, Vasudevanallur, is the appellant. The second respondent by name S. Ramaiah
was employed as Secretary in the appellant Co-Operative Bank which was constituted under The Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Societies Act, 1983.
He was placed under suspension on 03.02.1997 for various misconducts and ultimately after enquiry, he was terminated from service w.e.f.
01.08.1997. The said order was taken on appeal by the second respondent before the first respondent Appellate Authority under the Tamil Nadu
Shops and Establishments Act, Tirunelveli and the appellate authority has set aside the order of termination on the grounds that (1) the second
respondent though was suspended, was not paid subsistence allowance and therefore, he was denied the opportunity to effectively participate in
the enquiry; (2) the order of termination was issued retrospective with effect from the date of suspension and (3) even on merits, the management
did not prove the charges. The said order of the appellate authority was questioned in W.P. No. 8504 of 1998 and the learned single Judge had
dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the present writ appeal.
We have heard Mr. N. Thiagarajan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant Co-Operative Bank and Mr. R. Thirugnanam, learned Special
Government Pleader for the first respondent and also Mr. V. Gangadharan, learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent/employee.
It is not in dispute that by virtue of notification issued in G.O.Ms. No. 2905 Development, dated 31.05.1948, the Provisions of the Shops Act
were made applicable to all the Major Panchayats and an employee of the Co-Operative Bank situated in major Panchayat is also entitled to
invoke the provisions of Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act.
That apart, on merits, it could be seen that during the period of suspension, the second respondent was not paid subsistence allowance and
thereby he was deprived of his valuable right to participate and defend the charges in the enquiry. The payment of subsistence allowance is also to
be considered as a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, as it encompasses that the employee suspended pending
inquiry should survive to maintain his family and also to effectively participate in the disciplinary proceedings. Unless subsistence allowance is paid,
the employee would be deprived of his valuable right to effectively defend the disciplinary inquiry. In Jagdamba Prasad Shukla Vs. State of U.P.
and Others, , the Apex court has held that the payment of subsistence allowance is a matter of right and not a bounty. Further, the Apex Court in
Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. (1999) Scc (L & S) 810, of course, while considering the payment of subsistence
allowance to a Government Servant had in fact observed that an act of non payment of subsistence allowance could be linked to slow poisoning
and if the employee is not permitted to sustain himself on account of non payment of subsistence allowance, he would gradually starve to death.
The above said principle has been evolved keeping in mind the valuable right of an employee to effectively defend the charges. Unless and until
the subsistence allowance is paid, the employee, whose services are dispensed, cannot effectively defend the enquiry.
However, it cannot always be held that mere non payment of subsistence allowance by itself would be a sole ground to interfere with the order
of termination, as the employee must show the prejudice caused to him on account of such non payment of subsistence allowance. In this context,
we may usefully refer to the judgement in U.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd. Vs. P.C. Chaturvedi and Others, . In the present case, the prejudice
has been established in view of the fact that the second respondent was not only denied payment of subsistence allowance but the impugned order
of termination was made retrospective w.e.f. 03.02.1997 (i.e.) from the date of suspension. The law does not permit or recognise the order of
dismissal or termination retrospective, as it shall only be from the date when the order was passed. In this case, we find that the order of
termination is vitiated not only on the ground of non payment of subsistence allowance but also on the ground that the order of termination was
made retrospective giving effect from the date of suspension which cannot be recognised by Courts.
Even on merits, it is seen that the appellate authority has gone into the question, appreciated the materials and had come to the conclusion that
the charges have not been proved. It is seen that even the Management witnesses had accepted that the loan documents relating to the charges had
been prepared only by one Thiru. Ramasamy and not the delinquent. Even in respect of the falsified documents are concerned, it was admitted by
the witnesses that the falsified documents relating to the loan transactions of Tvl. Sivasubramanian, Kaliappan, Kanthimathinathan, Gomathy
Namasivayam were prepared by the said Ramasamy. For the reasons best known to the management/the appellant Co-Operative Bank, the said
Ramasamy was not either proceeded with any charges or not even examined and has been purposefully withheld even from the enquiry
proceedings. The said findings on facts has been accepted by the learned Judge and he declined to take a different view. We have, therefore, no
reason to re-appreciate the said finding and come to a different conclusion, especially when the order of termination was set aside even on the
basis of the evidence of the Management witnesses.
For all the above reasons, the writ appeal is dismissed and the order dated 22.11.2002 in W.P. No. 8504 of 1998 stand confirmed. NO costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.