The Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies v. N.Rajagarani

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR and C.M.P.(MD).No.18592 of 2024 1.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, No.170, N.V.Natarajan Maligai, Periyar EVR High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 612 001.

2.The Registrar of Co-operative Societies (Housing), Tamil Nadu Co-operative Housing Federation Complex, 48, II Floor, Ritherdon Road, Veperi, Chennai - 600 007.

3.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thanjavur Region, Thanjavur.

4.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Pattukottai, Thanjavur District.

... Appellants/Respondents Vs.

N.Rajagarani ... Respondent/Writ Petitioner PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order made in W.P.(MD).No.16364 of 2019 dated 04.01.2023 by allowing the Writ Appeal.

For Appellants : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam Government Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.M.R.Pandurangan

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) The Department is on appeal challenging the order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(MD).No.16364 of 2019 filed by the respondent herein.

2. The respondent herein had filed the said Writ Petition challenging the charge memo dated 27.05.2019 issued by the Deputy Registrar, Pattukottai, the fourth appellant herein. The writ petitioner was working as a Special Officer of Pattukottai Urban Co-operative Bank from 01.12.2012 till 08.05.2013 and was also its Managing Director from 09.05.2013 till 31.05.2014. The substance of the charge memo is that during the relevant point of time, the writ petitioner failed to bring the pledged jewels to auction. The learned Single Judge had quashed the charge memo by recording a finding that the writ petitioner had in fact taken steps to bring the pledged jewellery to auction.

3. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge could not have gone into the merits of the matter. The writ petitioner might have an excellent

defence. In fact, a reading of the charge memo itself discloses the acts taken by the writ petitioner. But, these are matters that will have to be gone into only in a regular enquiry. In this context, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the Writ Appeal stands allowed.

4. Considering the fact that the writ petitioner retired in the year 2019 itself, we direct that the entire disciplinary proceedings shall be concluded within a period of four (4) months. The writ petitioner has to necessarily extend her fullest cooperation for speedy conclusion. The disciplinary authority shall not seek for any extension of time from this Court. We also make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter. The Government is directed to settle the retiral benefits of the writ petitioner, as directed by this Court earlier, without any further delay. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(G.R.S.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 15.07.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Lm

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

and K.RAJASEKAR, J.

Lm 15.07.2025