Madras High Court
T. Chandrasekaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Its ... on 8 April, 2003
Author: F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla
Bench: F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla
ORDER B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.
1. This is a pro bono publico filed by an employee of a Co-operative Society seeking penal action against the other co-employees on the ground of either mala fides or misfeasance. The prayer is to direct the Government to take action by seeking an enquiry report from the Registrar, as contemplated under Section 182 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 ( in short 'the Act').
2. There are two aspects to the matter. Firstly, with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition as a pro bono publico, and the scope of Section 182 of the Act.
3. Insofar as the first aspect is concerned, it has been authoritatively held by the Supreme Court in RANJIT PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA that the public interest litigation cannot be entertained in the disciplinary proceedings, as the disciplinary proceedings are essentially a matter between the employer and the employee.
4. Mr.S.Kanagasabai Moses, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to distinguish the above judgment on the ground that in the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment, the petitioner was an Advocate, and as the Advocate was a stranger to the employer, the Supreme Court held that public interest litigation is not entertainable, and in this case, a co-employee himself is the petitioner, and as such, the public interest litigation is maintainable. The Supreme Court did not lay down on question of fact, but laid down on legal principles that in matters of disciplinary proceedings, a third party intervention is impermissible whether the third party may be an advocate or may be any other person like the petitioner herein. The purport of the judgment of the Supreme Court is that no third party intervention should be there in the disciplinary proceedings, as it is a matter purely between the employer and the employee, and it is for the employer to see as to whether a particular action invites penal proceedings. There is reason for not allowing intervention of any third party, apart from the co-employee in matters like this. The internal bickerings between the employees can readily be manifested if public interest litigation is permitted, and it will open the flood gates for various reasons like animosity etc. if such complaints are permitted to be ventilated through public interest litigation. What is said by the Supreme Court in the above case is that there cannot be an element of public interest on general matters involving disciplinary proceedings, and that is precisely the principles of law laid down, and in fact, this proposition of law has been further reiterated by the latest Supreme Court judgment in BALCO EMPLOYEES UNION (Regd) Vs. UNION OF INDIA (2002 (1) CTC 88). In view of what is stated by the Supreme Court, we hold that public interest litigation is not maintainable in this matter.
5. Insofar as Section 182 of the Act is concerned, that is only the power enabling the Government to issue appropriate directions for better working of the Co-operative Societies, and as the Registrar is the Head of the Co-operative Societies under the Government, the Government is enjoined by law to issue directions, and also seek the report in appropriate matters, and there cannot be any issue of a Writ particularly by way of "PIL" invoking Section 182 of the Act for the purpose of issuing directions. It is solely the pleasure of the Government to act under Section 182 of the Act for the purpose of effective management and supervision of the Co-operative Societies through its Registrar, and no Writ of Mandamus can be issued, as, for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus a legal right should be there so as to compel the performance of legal duty, and such concept of legal right and duty is absent in Section 182 of the Act. It is the sole prerogative of the Government either to issue direction or not, and this Court cannot be compelled to issue a Mandamus compelling the Government to issue such directions. In view of the above discussions, we dismiss this writ petition. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No. 11611 of 2003 is also dismissed.
B.S.R.,C.J. F.M.I.K.,J.
F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla,J.