S.Rajendran, v. The Deputy Commissioner Of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH W.P.No.30539 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 S.Rajendran
...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Appellate Authority under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, Tiruchirapalli, Trichy District.
2. The President/Special Officer, Z 262, Marudur North Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited, Marudur North, Rajapuram Post, Vedaranyam Taluk, Nagapatinam District - 614 806.
...Respondents
Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent in TNSE (A) 5/2012 dated 12.05.2014 and the order of dismissal from service passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings dated 24.08.2012 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages, continuity of service and all consequential and other attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Raja For Respondents: R1 - Court Mr.V.R.Thangavel [for R2]
ORDER
Based on certain charges of misappropriation of the funds of the second respondent/Society, the petitioner herein had rendered his explanation on 10.07.2012 to the levelled charges. However,the petitioner was dismissed from service on 24.08.2012. The challenge made to the dismissal order before the first
respondent was also rejected on 12.05.2014. Challenging these orders of dismissal, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 2.Among the various grounds raised in the present Writ Petition, the predominant ground is that the dismissal order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 3.According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, no inquiry was conducted prior to the impugned order of dismissal, nor was the petitioner's explanation was properly considered. It is also his submission that even though he has raised grounds before the first respondent while challenging the dismissal order, that he was not given an opportunity to put forth his objections, the same was disregarded.
4.The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that the charges against the petitioner are very serious in nature, which has caused a huge loss to the Society and since the shortcomings and misappropriation has been upheld in the inquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') and also the petitioner has returned the loss that was caused to the Society, no inquiry need to be conducted.
5.The principles of natural justice mandates that an employee, who is levelled with certain charges, has the right to give his objections to such levelled charges and on receipt of the same, the Society is required to consider such explanation and when it is not satisfied with the objections raised therein, they can subject him to a proper inquiry, by offering all the necessary opportunities to the employee during the course of inquiry.
6.Admittedly, in the instant case, no inquiry was conducted. However, the impugned order seems to have been passed on the strength of the inquiry report under Section 81 of the Act. Such a procedure is in violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. Merely because the report under Section 81 of the Act implicates the petitioner or that the petitioner had remitted back the alleged loss amount, it cannot be presumed that the punishment of dismissal is automatic. 7.Since this Court has now found that the procedure contemplated prior to passing the order of dismissal is in violation of the principles of natural justice, it would be appropriate to remit back the matter to the second respondent for conducting an inquiry. In view of such a decision, the order of dismissal, as well as its confirmation on appeal, requires to be set aside.
8. In the light of the above findings, the impugned orders dated 24.08.2012 and 12.05.2014, are quashed and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent for the purpose of conducting an inquiry. The second respondent herein, shall be at liberty to appoint a fresh Inquiry Officer and extend all due opportunities to the petitioner herein, based on the charge memo dated 16.05.2012. The second respondent herein, shall endeavour to complete such an inquiry as expeditiously as possible, in any event within a period of six (6)months from the date of commencement of such an inquiry.
9.With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands ordered. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Sni To
1. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Appellate Authority under Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, Tiruchirapalli, Trichy District.
2. The President / Special Officer, Z 262, Mardur North Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Limited, Marudur North, Rajapuram Post, Vedaranyam Taluk, Nagapatinam District - 614 806.
+1cc to Mr.K.Raja, Advocate, S.R.No.28238 +1cc to Mr.V.R.Thangavelu, Advocate, S.R.No.28346 +1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.28887 W.P.No.30539 of 2014 PA(CO) RGA(25/05/2022)