AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Rajan, J.—The petitioner filed the above writ petition praying to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order
dated 30.10.2000 in Na.Ka. No. 5115/E/2000 of the first respondent and quash the same.
The writ petitioner is a Co-operative Society, the facts that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
The second respondent was employed as clerk on daily wages on 01.08.1991 and was paid a consolidated salary of Rs. 300/- per month in the
petitioner society, that from 01.04.1994, the consolidated pay was enhanced to Rs. 750/-per month and from 01.04.1996it was further enhanced
to Rs. 1000/-. While so, number of charges were framed against her. The first charge is, the second respondent increased her pay without any
authority and the second one is the remittance were not recorded, the third charge is collections were not brought to the record and only on
10.01.1996 the amounts collected were brought to picture, that is, after a lapse of 9 months and, therefore, there was a charge for temporary
misappropriation of amount and also for creating false records. On enquiry, the enquiry officer found that all the charges are proved and thereafter
an order of dismissal was passed on 03.02.2000. Against the order of dismissal, the second respondent filed a revision before the first respondent
and the first respondent in turn passed the impugned order on 30.10.2001 ordering for re-instatement of the second respondent and also ordered
for recovery of monies embezzled by the second respondent. The order itself clearly shows that the second respondent has committed serious
irregularities and mis-appropriation of funds. When the financial irregularities and misappropriation funds of money in most of the charges are
proved by documents and in her own admission, the first respondent should have dismissed the revision petition. The impugned order is liable to be
set aside.
The second respondent filed her counter-affidavit stating that the second respondent was appointed as a Clerk in the petitioner society on
01.08.1991. she was paid consolidated salary of Rs. 300/- per month. From 01.04.1994 the consolidated pay was enhanced to Rs. 750/- per
month and from 01.04.1996 it was further enhanced to Rs. 1000/- Thereafter the Assistant Director of Fisheries Nagercoil, in his proceedings
dated 13.09.1997 fixed the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 640-20-680-25-805 for petitioner society. On the basis of the above proceedings, the
second respondent requested the writ petitioner to fix her pay. Inspite of implementing the order of the Assistant Director of Fisheries, the
petitioner society by resolution dated 19.10.1997 converted the consolidated pay into daily wages of Rs.35/per day. The said resolution was not
informed to the second respondent. When the society calculated her salary of Rs. 910/- (Rs. 35x26 days), she refused to receive the same on the
ground that she was already drawing a consolidated salary of Rs. 1000/- and further more as per the order of the Assistant Director of Fisheries,
Nagercoil dated 13.09.1997, she is entitled for salary in the new scale of Rs. 540/- and the total salary in the new scale will be Rs. 1537/-.
Thereafter another resolution was passed fixing her salary as Rs. 1200/- from February, 1998. Ultimately, the President agreed to implement the
order of the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Nagercoil by giving salary with effect from 01.04.1997 and accordingly, directed the second
respondent to prepare the minutes. As per the practice, the President of the Society entrusted the minutes book to the second respondent on
25.08.1998 and directed her to prepare the minutes in compliance with the order of the Assistant Director of Fisheries, Nagercoil dated
13.09.1997. After verifying the minutes, the President of the society gave her Rs. 15,372/-, which was the cash available with the President on
25.08.1998, and the President of the Society further directed the balance amount of Rs. 12,319/- to be taken from daily collection and
accordingly the balance amount was taken by the second respondent on the next seven days'' collection and it has been recorded in the daybook
also. But the charge memo was served on 12.03.1999 for alleged malpractice of preparing the minutes and withdrawing the arrears of salary. A
reply was given by her on 24.03.1999 and another charge memo dated 30.06.1999 containing six charges was served to her and for that also she
gave her reply. The cash balance was always in the custody of the President or the Special Officer of the Society. Further, there was some
collections on the basis of Insurance Policy the certain policies were withdrawn subsequently. Therefore, the amount that was collected were
deposited after deducting the administrative charges. Collections were remitted but it was not shown in the day book with respect to three claims
of the insurance. The audit party pointed out the mistake and the cash balance was with the President and yet shortage has been collected from the
second respondent on 03.02.2000 while paying subsistence allowance for the months of October to December, 1999 and January,2000. The
charges are totally false and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner society submitted that the domestic enquiry was conducted and all the charges were found proved
and after issuing showing cause notice and after completion of all the formalities, the order of dismissal was passed. Against the said order of
dismissal, only an appeal lies but no appeal was filed by the second respondent, but only revision was filed and the revisional authority passed an
order on the ground that since Industrial Dispute was pending before the Labour Court, Tirunelveli at Nagercoil, subject to the result of the I.D.,
the second respondent would be reinstated. But it seems that the second respondent had not proceeded with the I.D. and therefore, the present
writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the revisional authority.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is no appeal remedy provided under the Act and Therefore, revision has been filed by
the second respondent; irrespective of the fact whether an appeal lies a revision lies against the order of dismissal. The revisional authority has
passed the order reinstating the second respondent and also making it clear that such reinstatement would be subject to the result of the industrial
disputes raised by the second respondent with respect to the same issue.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the industrial dispute was withdrawn or no order was passed in that industrial dispute, the
order of reinstatement must be deemed to have been vacated on the ground that the industrial dispute had been dismissed.
Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that since I.D. had not even been numbered and it was returned and the same
was not re-presented by the second respondent; and inasmuch as the I.D. was not re-presented, it cannot be said that it was dismissed. Therefore,
there was no adverse order against the second respondent and the revisional authority''s order stand and cannot as such be set aside.
Admittedly, an order of dismissal was passed against the second respondent dismissing her from service, by the competent authority, as a result
of an enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer. Against the said order of dismissal, a revision was filed u/s 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative
Societies Act 1983.
Learned counsel for the second respondent relied upon the decision of this Court by P. Sathasivam, J. in K. Radhakrishnan Vs. The Additional
Registrar (Marketing, Planning and Development), Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kilpauk, Madras-10 and another, , in the
case of maintainability of revision in service matter. Accordingly, the revision petition was filed by the second respondent and the revisional
authority passed an order reinstating the second respondent subject to the result of the industrial dispute.
Learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the industrial dispute was not numbered. Admittedly, the same was not pressed at all.
When the order has been specific on the ground that industrial dispute is pending for the same relief, and the order passed by the revisional
authority would be subject to the result of the Industrial dispute and when the industrial dispute was not persuaded, it would tantamount to
dismissal of the I.D. That means the second respondent did not challenge the validity of the order by way of industrial dispute, that means she has
relinquished her right of raising an industrial dispute. Therefore, it cannot be said that the I.D. was not dismissed and no order in respect of the
second respondent was passed. Therefore, ''subject to the result of the industrial dispute'' would mean the order of the revisional authority would
be subject to the order that may be passed. Inasmuch as the I.D. Was not filed, it amount to ""dismissal of I.D."". Hence, the impugned order is set
aside.
In the circumstances, in order to give a fair chance to both the petitioner and the second respondent, this Court is of the view that it is proper
to remit the matter to the revisional authority to pass orders on merits of the case.
Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the revisional authority with a direction to dispose of the revision
in accordance with law and on merits, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.