Madras High Court
P.Mohan Ram vs The Registrar Of Cooperative Societies on 11 July, 2018
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: K.K.Sasidharan, R.Subramanian
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.07.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
W.A.No.300 of 2014
and MP No.1 of 2014
P.Mohan Ram ... Appellant
versus
1. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies
No.170 E.V.R. Periyar Salai,
NVN Maaligai, Kilpauk, Chennai 10.
2. The Regional Joint Registrar of
Cooperative Societies,
Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents
Appeal filed against the order passed by this Court dated 25.02.2013 passed in Review Application No.26 of 2013 and WP. No.8356 of 2007 (O.A. No.3288/2002).
For Appellant : Mr.N.R.Jasmine Padma
for M/s.L.Chandrakumar
For Respondents : Mr.L.P.Shanmuga Sundaram
Special Government Pleader (Co-op)
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.) Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge made in Review Application No.26 of 2013 and WP No.8356 of 2007 (OA No.3288 of 2002), the appellant is before us by way of this intra Court Appeal. The Writ Petition in WP. No.8356 of 2007 was originally filed as OA. No.3288 of 2002, before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and an abolition of Tribunal stood transferred to this Court and numbered as above.
2. The appellant sought for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 29.05.2002 made in RC No.1949/2000/EM-I, in and by which, the 1st respondent reverted the appellant to the post of Junior Inspector of Cooperative Societies from that of Senior Inspector.
The brief back ground of the case is as follows:
3. The appellant, who was working as a Junior Engineer of Cooperative Society, was charge sheeted for certain delinquencies under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (D&A) Rules. In view of the pendency of the charges, the appellants name was not included in the panel for promotion as Senior Inspector. Aggrieved, the appellant moved the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in OA No.4648 of 1996. By an order dated 19.02.1998, the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, directed the respondents to consider the representation of the appellant dated 01.07.1996 for promotion as Senior Inspector of Cooperative societies, subject to the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and in the light of the findings thereon.
4. Pursuant to the said order, the appellant was promoted as a Senior Inspector on 28.05.1998, subject to the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter, the disciplinary proceedings were concluded and a punishment was imposed on the appellant on 25.01.2000. The said order was communicated to the appellant during November 2000 as against the said order the appellant had filed statutory appeal on 08.01.2001.
5. In view of the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, the 1st respondent issued the order dated 29.05.2002 reverting the appellant to the post of Junior Inspector. Pending the said OA. No.3288 of 2002 challenging the order of reversion, the order of reversion was stayed. Subsequently, the Appellate Authority also rejected the statutory appeal filed by the appellant on 02.12.2003. The said order rejecting the statutory appeal was challenged by the appellant in WP No.23177 of 2004 in this Court. The said Writ Petition came to be allowed by an order dated 06.01.2012, this Court while setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority remitted the matter back to the 1st respondent (Appellate Authority) directing the Appellate Authority to consider the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity to the appellant and then pass a detailed speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
6. Pursuant to the said order of remand passed by this Court in WP No.23177 of 2004 dated 06.01.2012, the appellate Authority, viz. the 1st respondent took up the enquiry proceedings and after reconsidering the entire evidence on record. The Appellate authority concluded that the charges have not been made out. The operative portion of the order of the Appellate Authority dated 20.04.2012, reads as follows:
6/nkw;fz;l epiyapy; nky;KiwaPl;lhsuJ kD TLjy; kD kw;Wk; neuof;nfl;gpd; nghJ mspj;j thf;FK:yk; Mfpait bjhlh;g[ila K:y Mtz';fSld; ghprPypf;fg;gl;ljpy; nky;KiwaPl;lhsh; kPJ rptf';if ruf Jizg;gjpthsuhy; gof;fg;gl;lit (1),d; tHp bjhlug;gl;l Fw;wr;rhl;Lf; Fwpg;ghiz chpa Mtz Mjhu';fspd;wp mw;gkhd fhuz';fSf;fhf bjhlug;gl;Ls;sJ vd Mtz';fspd; K:yk; bjhpa tUfpwJ/ vdnt. nky;KiwaPl;lhsh; jpU/gp/nkhfd;uhk;. Kjepiy Ma;thsUf;F gof;fg;gl;lit (2),y; K:d;W Mz;L Cjpa cah;t[ jpuz;l gaDld; (tpLg;g[f; fhyk; cs;spl;L) epWj;jk; bra;J tH';fg;gl;l jz;lidapiz js;Sgo bra;ayhk; vd gjpthsh; mth;fshy; Kot[ bra;ag;gl;L mt;thnw Mizaplg;gLfpwJ/ 7/ nkny gj;jp (6),y; cs;s gjpthshpd; Mizg;go jpU/gp/nkhfd;uhk;. Kjepiy Ma;thshpd; Cjpaj;ij mog;gil tpjp 29(A),d;go tud;KiwgLj;j ntz;Lk;/
7. Thereafter, the Original application filed by the appellant in OA. No.3288 of 2002, which was numbered as WP No.8356 of 2007 came up before this Court. By an order dated 24.07.2012, the said Writ Petition came to be dismissed, on the ground that the punishment has been imposed in the departmental enquiry and the learned Single Judge while disposing of the Writ Petition found that once the promotion of the appellant was subject to the final outcome of the departmental proceedings, the Authorities were right in reverting him, in view of the punishment imposed in the Departmental proceedings. In fact that when the Writ Petition was dismissed on 24.07.2012, the order of the Appellate Authority dated 20.04.2012 setting aside the order of punishment and releaving the appellant of all charges passed by the Appellate Authority was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge.
8. It appears that thereafter, the appellant moved the Review Application in Review Application No.26 of 2013 claiming that the order imposing punishment has been set aside and therefore the order of reversion cannot be sustained. The Review Application also came to be dismissed on the ground the same is not sufficient ground to seek review, hence the instant Appeal.
9. We have heard Mr.N.R.Jasmine Padma learned counsel appearing for for M/s.L.Chandrakumar, for the appellant and Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.
10. The fact that the appellant was directed to be promoted subject to the result of the Departmental proceedings by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 19.02.1998 made in OA No.4648 of 1996 is not in dispute. Pursuant to the said order, the appellant was in fact promoted as a Senior Inspector by the proceedings of the Joint Registrar dated 28.05.1998. The said order was recalled on the ground that the appellant had suffered a punishment in the departmental enquiry proceedings. The said recalling or reversion was challenged in OA No.3288 of 2002, pending which the Tribunal has stayed the operation of the reversion order. Thus, the appellant continued to work as a Senior Inspector till disposal of the Writ Petition on 24.07.2012. It is also not in dispute that during the interregnum, the Appellate Authority in the disciplinary proceedings had set aside the punishment imposed concluding that the charges are baseless. Therefore, the very basis for the reversion dated 29.05.2002 ceased to exist.
11. Once the basis for the reversion goes the consequence, viz. the reversion itself cannot stand independently. Unfortunately, the fact that the Appellate Authority, in the disciplinary proceedings, had found that the charges are baseless and set aside the punishment imposed on the appellant was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge when he disposed of the Writ Petition on 24.07.2012. An attempted Review also failed on the sole ground that the subsequent events cannot be a ground for review.
12. Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the appellant had been serving as a Senior Inspector since 1995, solely based on interim orders. To a certain extent the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader appears to be correct, but the fact remains that the Disciplinary proceedings had ended in favour of the appellant in the year 2012. Therefore, the promotion granted to the appellant, pursuant to the order of the Tribunal, made in OA No.4648 of 1996 cannot be recalled inasmuch as the disciplinary proceedings had ended in favour of the appellant. He also stated that after the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the appellant was again reverted and the appellant had challenged the same, before the Madurai Bench and the Madurai Bench had stayed the operation of the reversion order.
13. Taking into account, the subsequent events particularly the order of the Appellate Authority made in the disciplinary proceedings dated 20.04.2012, in and by which, the Appellate Authority had absolved the appellant from all the charges and in fact held that the charges are baseless. We do not think that the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition challenging the order of reversion, based on the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings could be sustained. We are therefore constrained to interfere with the order of the learned Single.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Appeal is allowed, the order of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The Writ Petition in WP No.8356 of 2007 (OA No.3288 of 2002) will stand allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.) (R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
11.07.2018
jv
Index: Yes/no
Internet: Yes/No
speaking order/non speaking order
To
1. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies
No.170 E.V.R. Periyar Salai,
NVN Maaligai, Kilpauk, Chennai 10.
2. The Regional Joint Registrar of
Cooperative Societies,
Ramanathapuram.
K.K.SASIDHARAN, J.
and
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
(jv)
W.A.No.300 of 2014
and MP No.1 of 2014
11.07.2018