Madras High Court
E.Nedunchezhiyan vs The Additional Registrar Of ... on 3 March, 2020
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T. Raja
W.P.No.3311 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.03.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. RAJA
Writ Petition No.3311 of 2011
E.Nedunchezhiyan ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Additional Registrar of Co-operative
Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai-10.
2. The Chairman, Common Cadre Authority/
Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Thiruvannamalai Region,
Thiruvannamalai.
3. The Special Officer,
H.H.500 Sathanur Primary Agricultural
Co-operative Credit Society,
Sathanur Post, Thandrampattu Taluk,
Thiruvannamalai District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling
for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the
1st respondent in his Proceedings No.Na.Ka.49718/2009 Sa.Pa.1
dated 08.02.2010 confirming the order passed by the 2nd
respondent in his Proceedings No.Na.Ka.5620/2004 PACB dated
27.4.2009 and quash the same and consequently, direct the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all back
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/8
W.P.No.3311 of 2011
wages and other benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.R.Suresh
For Respondents : Mr.T.Girija,
Addl.G.P. for R1 and R2
Mr.M.S.Palanisamy for R3
ORDER
The petitioner, challenging the order of dismissal dated 27.04.2009 passed by the Chairman, Common Cadre Authority/Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvannamalai Region, Thiruvannamalai, which was again on appeal confirmed by the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai- 10 by Proceedings dated 08.02.2010, has come to this Court with the present Writ Petition.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Salesman in the 3rd respondent Society on 15.6.1988 and subsequently, he was promoted as Clerk on 10.03.1989, thereafter as Assistant Secretary on 15.11.1995 and finally as Secretary on 23.03.1999. While discharging his duties, totally, he suffered three departmental proceedings. Firstly, in a Departmental Enquiry, 7 charges were levelled against him. Subsequently, the departmental proceedings ended in his dismissal of service by Order dated 27.04.2009 passed http://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 W.P.No.3311 of 2011 by the Chairman, Common Cadre Authority/Joint Registrar of Co- opertive Societies, Thiruvannamalai Region, Thiruvannamalai. As against the same, he preferred an appeal before the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai-10, the 1st respondent herein who also confirmed the same ignoring the various pleas raised by the petitioner herein. Therefore, left with no other option, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the correctness of the said orders.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that secondly, the petitioner also suffered surcharge proceedings initiated by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Finally, the surcharge proceedings also were ended on 27.11.2008. Thereupon, he was found guilty of the lapses and the Deputy Registrar passed an award imposing a sum of Rs.2,13,839.30. As against the same, the petitioner filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai and the same is also pending. Thirdly, the petitioner faced trial in five criminal cases and the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner also came to an end by orders dated 02.06.2010. In all the cases, though he was found guilty for the offences alleged against him in each case, the learned http://www.judis.nic.in 3/8 W.P.No.3311 of 2011 Judicial Magistrate No.2, Vellore, by an individual orders dated 02.06.2010 admonished and released him under Sections 4(1)(3) (4) and (5) of the Probation of Offenders Act with an observation that the orders dated 02.06.2010 will not stand as a disqualification to suffer from any dismissal or discharge.
4. Arguing further, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the 2nd respondent initiated the Disciplinary Proceedings, the petitioner made a request to furnish relevant documents. But the Domestic Enquiry Officer refused to furnish any document, as a result, he was unable to defend his case. Therefore, the impugned order of dismissal from service passed by the 2nd respondent which was confirmed by the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside. Moreover the charges levelled against the petitioner are also vague inasmuch as the 3rd respondent Management failed to produce the relevant documents to prove the stand of the petitioner before the Domestic Enquiry Officer.
5. Disputing the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no relevant documents were furnished to the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the 3rd http://www.judis.nic.in 4/8 W.P.No.3311 of 2011 respondent replied that the petitioner was permitted to pursue all the relevant documents in the 3rd respondent Society, but, he only did not utilise the said opportunity given by the Enquiry Officer appointed by the 2nd respondent. He further submitted that though the petitioner was aware of the 7 charges levelled against him, even during the enquiry proceedings held on 26.12.2008, 17.1.2009 and 03.02.2009 for the reason best known to him, the petitioner failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer, but, he submitted his written explanation. Explaining further, the learned Counsel for the 3 rd respondent submitted that when the petitioner was provided with sufficient opportunities on 26.12.2008, 17.1.2009 and 03.02.2009, it is not known why the petitioner has chosen not to appear and what is the point in filing the written explanation alone which clearly shows that he was reluctant and shy in appearing before the Enquiry Officer for the reason that he was not having any explanation to offer.
6. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 also submitted that when the petitioner was rightly canvassed by the Enquiry Officer to appear for the enquiry on 26.12.2008, 17.1.2009 and 03.02.2009, without appearing before the Enquiry Officer not for once or twice, but http://www.judis.nic.in 5/8 W.P.No.3311 of 2011 thrice, he has just come to this Court taking a defence that he was not furnished with relevant documents. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. I fully agree with the submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing for the respondents. The reason being that when the petitioner was already found guilty by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Vellore in the five criminal cases lodged against him by the Inspector of Police, Commercial Investigation Division, Thiruvannamalai, he was found guilty in all the cases, however, by an individual orders dated 02.06.2010, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Vellore admonished and released him under Sections 4(1)(3) (4) and (5) of the Probation of Offenders Act with an observation that the orders dated 02.06.2010 will not stand as a disqualification to suffer from any dismissal or discharge. Even prior to the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Vellore, in the criminal cases, the finding of the 2nd respondent in the departmental proceedings is to the effect that the petitioner has failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer not on a single occasion, but on three occasions and there was no merit whatsoever in his explanation. Therefore, his non-appearance before the Enquiry Officer clearly shows that he was not willing to participate in the http://www.judis.nic.in 6/8 W.P.No.3311 of 2011 domestic enquiry.
8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the view that a person, who failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer is not entitled to maintain the Writ Petition. The said view of this Court is supported by the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State Bank of India vs. Hemant Kumar reported in (2011) 5 MLJ 845 (SC) wherein it has been held that non-appearance of delinquent on hearing dates amounts to undue delay and the principles of natural justice cannot be stretched to render the in-house proceedings unworkable. In view of all the above, I find no merit in the Writ Petition.
9. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
03.03.2020 Index : Yes/No. Internet : Yes/No. tsi http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 W.P.No.3311 of 2011 T.RAJA, J.
tsi To
1. The Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kilpauk, Chennai-10.
2. The Chairman, Common Cadre Authority, Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvannamalai Region, Thiruvannamalai.
3. The Special Officer, H.H.500 Sathanur Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society, Sathanur Post, Thandrampattu Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.
W.P.No.3311 of 2011
03.03.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8