P.Ravichandran, (Died) v. The Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.12036 and 12037 of 2016 P.Ravichandran (Died) 1.Aruna Ravichandran 2.Hemapriya 3.Aswin Priya 4.P.Saroja ... Petitioners vs.
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Cooperative Food and Consumer Production Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
1/13
2.The Joint Registrar /Review Officer, Cooperative Societies, Regional Joint Registrar Office, Pudukkottai.
3.The Joint Registrar /Revisional Officer, Cooperative Societies, Regional Joint Registrar Office, Pudukkottai.
4.The Administration/ Special Officer, Joint Registrar / Managing Director, Thiruchirappalli District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Thiruchirappalli.
... Respondents (P1 to P4 substituted, vide order, dated 13.02.2023, in W.M.P.(MD)No.323 of 2021, in W.P.(MD)No.16473 of 2016) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order No.0623/10-11A10, dated 25.06.2011, passed by the 4th respondent and confirmed by the 3rd respondent in Na.Ka.No.4408/2012A2, dated 25.08.2014 and confirmed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.666/2015A2, dated 16.02.2016 and confirmed by the 1st respondent in letter No.9059/C IP B1/2016/1, 2/13
dated 30.06.2016 and to quash the same and consequentially, to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with consequential benefits. For Petitioners : Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj For R1 to 3 : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi *****
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed for writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order, dated 25.06.2011 passed by the 4th respondent and confirmed by the 3rd respondent, dated 25.08.2014 and confirmed by the 2nd respondent, dated 16.02.2016 and confirmed by the 1st respondent, dated 30.06.2016 and consequentially, to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with consequential benefits.
3/13
2. The petitioner joined the 4th respondent Co-operative Society Bank as Assistant on 01.07.1998. On 16.09.2009, the charge memo was issued alleging the petitioner misappropriated a sum of Rs.11,000/- on 06.07.2009. The petitioner remitted the same on 17.09.2009. Thereafter, two other charge memos, dated 16.07.2010 and 31.01.2011, were issued, whereby it was alleged that the petitioner belatedly accounted the amount which was remitted by the customers namely, Anandan, Karuppasamy, Kaalichelvi and Thavasi. Thereby, temporarily misappropriated a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The petitioner submitted an explanation. Thereafter, the respondents appointed an enquiry officer, who submitted a report on 16.05.2011 holding that all the charges are proved. A second show cause notice, dated 25.05.2011, was issued whereby the petitioner was granted three days time to submit a reply. The petitioner submitted a letter seeking extension of time. Finally, the 4th respondent passed an order, dated 25.06.2011 and imposed a punishment of termination from service.
4/13
3. The contention of the petitioner is that the said order is without any material and it is very vague. The petitioner filed an appeal to the 3rd respondent under Section 153 of Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 and the same was dismissed on 25.08.2014. The petitioner invoked review under Section 154 and the same was dismissed. The petitioner also preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed, vide order, dated 30.06.2016. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition is filed.
4. The respondents have filed counter affidavits stating that the charges against the petitioner are serious in nature. The petitioner without accounting the amount which was deposited by the members, violated the standing orders and thereby committed temporary misappropriation. Initially, the petitioner misappropriated Rs.11,000/- on 06.07.2009 and when it was pointed out by the respondents, then the petitioner immediately remitted back the amount in the year 5/13
2010. The petitioner has repeatedly followed the same method and temporarily misappropriated. Therefore, the respondents decided to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. The petitioner has accepted such transactions and therefore, the enquiry officer has held that the charges are proved. Accepting the said enquiry report, the disciplinary authority imposed a punishment of termination from service. On appeal, the same was confirmed and review was also rejected. Thereafter, the Government has also rejected the appeal stating that once the review jurisdiction was exercised, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Government. Moreover, on merits, the Government has also stated that the order need not be interfered with. Therefore, the respondents prayed to dismiss the writ petition. The counter affidavit filed by the Government also reiterates the same contents.
6/13
5. When the writ petition was pending before this Court, the petitioner died on 12.12.2018. So, the deceased petitioner's legal heirs have filed a substitution petition and the same is allowed by this Court.
6. Heard Mr.T.Antony Arul Raj, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.A.Baskaran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi, learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and perused the records.
7. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the appointing authority has passed a one page order. The authority has not discussed any of the charges and has not passed any reasoned order. The order only states that the petitioner had accepted the charges and the enquiry officer's report held the charges are proved, hence the punishment is imposed. The relevant portion of the order, dated 25.06.2011 is extracted here under: 7/13
8/13
8. On perusing the above said order, the deceased petitioner has stated that due to confusion in his mind because of his family circumstances he has committed the mistake. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appointing authority ought to have taken the mental status of the deceased petitioner and imposed some lesser punishment.
9. The respondents submitted that the charges are very serious in nature, it is not only temporary misappropriation but the petitioner has created certain documents and destroyed certain for which he relied on the list of documents that is annexed along with the enquiry officer's report wherein under Serial No.1, it has been stated as under:
"05.04.2010-k; Njjpa fhrhshpd; Scroll gjpNtL Nrkpg;G fzf;F vz;.111 NgNuL> fzf;F vz;.111 Mde;jk; gh];Gj;jfk; kw;Wk; thbf;ifahsh; 05.04.2010-k; Njjp njhif nrYj;jpa nryhd; Mfpatw;wpd; efy;fs;."
9/13
10. On hearing the rival submissions of both the sides, this Court is of the considered opinion that the deceased petitioner has indulged in destroying the documents as well. Therefore, it is not a question of misappropriation but also a question of destroying the vital evidences.
11. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the deceased petitioner has deposited the amount which has been alleged as misappropriation and there is no loss to the Bank. Also taking note of the fact of petitioner's death into consideration and as the deceased petitioner has served for more than 13 years, this Court is inclined to modify the punishment as compulsory retirement fixing the period of service from 01.07.1998 (date of joining the service) to 25.06.2011 (date of passing the impugned dismissal order). The respondents are directed to implement this order and pay the consequential benefits to the legal heirs of the deceased employee. The said exercise shall be 10/13
completed within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. With the above said observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 13.02.2023 Internet : Yes (2/2) NCC : Yes / No Tmg 11/13
To 1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Cooperative Food and Consumer Production Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Joint Registrar /Review Officer, Cooperative Societies, Regional Joint Registrar Office, Pudukkottai.
3.The Joint Registrar /Revisional Officer, Cooperative Societies, Regional Joint Registrar Office, Pudukkottai.
12/13
S.SRIMATHY, J Tmg 13.02.2023 (2/2) 13/13