N.Palanisamy(Died), v. The Joint Registrar Of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH W.P.No.9774 of 2012 1.N.Palanisamy (died) 2.Thamaraiselvi 3.Shanmuga Saranya 4.Subalakshmi 5.Thirumathal (P2 to P5 substituted as LRs of deceased sole petitioner vide order dated 09.12.2021 in WMP.8037/2020 in WP.No.9774/2012)
...Petitioners
-Vs1. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Coimbatore Zone, Coimbatore.
2. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pollachi Zone, Pollachi, Coimbatore.
3. Special Officer, Valparai Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Valparai, Coimbatore District.
...Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the entire records of the 3rd respondent dated 30.08.2011 and confirmed by the 1st respondent in Appeal No.10341/11/Ve2 dated 17.02.2012, quash the same and thereby direct the 3rd respondent to reinstate me as Assistant Manager with all pay, all the back wages, arrears of salary and attendant benefits etc.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Veeraraghavan For R1 & R2 : Mr.U.Baranidharan, Additional Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.S.Arumugam, Government Advocate
ORDER
With the consent of both the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. The charge against the petitioner was that he had not performed his duties properly and had sanctioned excess loan amounts, thereby causing loss to the Co-operative Bank. Along with the petitioner, one cashier namely, Jaganathan, was also imputed with similar charges. Based on an enquiry conducted, the third respondent had passed an order on 30.08.2011, dismissing the petitioner from the services.
3. In the surcharge proceedings initiated under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), it was found that the loan amount sanctioned by the petitioner herein was fully recovered by the petitioner and therefore, there was no loss to the Bank. This apart, the Cashier Jaganathan, who also faced similar charges, was reinstated back into service, while the petitioner's termination order was not interfered with. As against the order of dismissal, the petitioner had preferred a revision before the first respondent herein under Section 153 of the Act and by a cryptic order dated 17.02.2012, the dismissal order was confirmed in one line.
4. The very basis of the charge cannot be sustained, since in the surcharge proceedings under Section 87 of the Act, it was found on the basis of an enquiry that there was no loss to the Bank, since the entire sanctioned loan amount was recovered. As such, the punishment of termination, which is based on the charge that the excess loan sanctioned had caused loss to the Bank, cannot be sustained.
5. Insofar as the order passed by the first respondent under Section 153 of the Act is concerned, though the order runs to about 17 pages, the finding of the first respondent is a single line finding, stating that the revision is being dismissed on the basis of the evidence in the domestic enquiry. Since there is no application of mind on the part of the first respondent, while this revisional order was passed, the same cannot be sustained.
6. In normal circumstances, this Court would have remitted back the matter to the first respondent for reconsideration, for the purpose of passing a speaking order. However, the petitioner had expired pending the writ petition and he is now being represented by his legal heirs, who are the petitioners 2 to 5 herein. As such, serious prejudice would be caused to the legal
heirs of the deceased petitioner, if the matter is remitted back for reconsideration. Even otherwise, since the co-delinquent, namely, the Cashier Jaganathan, who was imputed with similar charges, has been ordered to be reinstated back into service, I do not find any justification in directing the first respondent to reconsider the matter.
7. For all the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 30.08.2011, which was confirmed by the first respondent in the appeal dated 17.02.2012, are quashed. Consequently, there shall be a direction to the respondents to forthwith disburse the death-cum-retirement benefits to the legal heirs of late N.Palanisamy, who are the petitioners 2 to 5 herein, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. The Writ Petition stands allowed, accordingly. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar hvk To
1. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Coimbatore Zone, Coimbatore.
2. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pollachi Zone, Pollachi, Coimbatore.
3. Special Officer, Valparai Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Valparai, Coimbatore District.
+1cc to Mr.C.Veeraraghavan, Advocate, S.R.No.10198 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.10762 W.P.No.9774 of 2012 PCH(CO) SU(10/03/2022)(14/03/2022)