Madras High Court
P.Vijayaraghavan vs The President on 23 August, 2022
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar, S.Srimathy
W.A(MD)No. 902 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No. 902 of 2022
P.Vijayaraghavan ... Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.The President,
Dindigul Central Co-operative Bank Limited,
Co-operative Nagar,
Trichy Road,
Dindigul.
2.The Joint Registrar/Managing Director,
Dindigul Central Co-operative Bank Limited,
Co-operative Nagar,
Trichy Road,
Dindigul.
3.The Enquiry Officer,
Dindigul Central Co-operative Bank Limited,
Co-operative Nagar,
Trichy Road,
Dindigul. ...Respondents
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No. 902 of 2022
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the
order dated 09.04.2019 made in W.P(MD)No.6458 of 2015 and allow this writ
appeal.
For Appellant :Mr.P.Subbiah,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.P.Athimoolapandian
For Respondents :Mr.M.Ganesan
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.S.SUNDAR, J.) This writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of termination in W.P(MD)No.6458 of 2015, dated 09.04.2019.
2. Heard Mr.P.Subbiah, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.P.Athimoolapandian, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.M.Ganesan, learned counsel for the respondents.
2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No. 902 of 2022
3. Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:
(i) The appellant was working as a Circle Supervisor under the Joint Registrar-cum-Managing Director of Dindigul Central Co-operative Bank Limited, who is the second respondent in the writ petition. The appellant's job was to visit the Societies which are under the control of the second respondent in the writ petition in regular intervals to check the jewels pledged by the customers in the respective societies and to verify the Registers and Ledgers and records maintained by the societies. The appellant was transferred later to Kallimandhayam as a Circle Supervisor. He was given additional charge of supervising about 21 Societies. It was at that time, a criminal complaint was lodged against the appellant by the Secretaries of various Societies for stealing small bags with jewels which were pledged by the farmers while obtaining jewel loan.
(ii) It is pertinent to mention that the appellant has admitted his guilt before the police and paid substantial amount to the respective societies at the relevant point of time. The fact that he has misappropriated the jewel from 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No. 902 of 2022 varies societies was admitted at the beginning of enquiry and the appellant has paid in all a sum of Rs.26,40,900/- to the respective societies towards the value of the jewels which he has misappropriated at the time of inspection.
Thereafter, a charge-memo was issued against the appellant and an Enquiry Officer was appointed and the charges framed against the appellants are as follows:
“Fw;wr;rhl;L – 1 jpU.g;gp.tp$auhftd;, cjtpahsh; (jw;fhypf gzp ePf;fk;) 09.06.2011 – e; njjp Kjy; 25.10.2013 – e; njjptiu kj;jpa Tl;Lwt[ tq;fpapd; xl;ld;rj;jpuk; rufnkw;ghh;itahsuhft[k; 26.08.2013 e; njjp Kjy; 25.10.2013 – e; njjptiu rj;jpug;gl;o rufnkw;ghh;itahsh; gjtpapid KGf;TLjy; bghWg;gpYk; gzpg[hpe;J te;jhh;. Rufnkw;ghh;itahsh; gzpepiyf;fhd flikfSk; kw;Wk;
bghWg;g[f;fSk; ghh;it(2)-y; fhZk; Rw;wwpf;ifapd;go ,tUf;F Vw;fdnt eph;zapf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ.
,tuJ gzpf;fhyj;jpy; nfijaWk;g,[ Xilg;gl;o, tpUg;ghl;rp, rj;jpug;gl;o, nghLthh;gl;o kw;Wk; kQ;rehaf;fd;gl;o Mfpa bjhlf;f ntshz;ik Tl;Lwt[ fld; rq;fq;fspy; Ma;t[fs; nkw;bfhzlLs;shh;. ,r;rq;fq;fspy; Ma;t[fs; nkw;bfhz;lnghJ rq;fq;fspy; eifg;igfis rhpghh;f;Fk; nghJ kiwKfkhf rpy eif igfis fsthoa[k; gpd;dh; me;eiffSf;Fhpa ,Hg;gPl;Lj; bjhiffis me;je;j bjhlf;f ntshz;ik Tl;Lwt[ fld;
rq;fq;fSf;F jpUk;gt[k; brYj;jpa[s;shh;.
,t;thwhf tq;fpapd; thof;ifahsh;fSf;F Jnuhfk; ,iHf;Fk; tifapYk; tq;fpapd; eph;thfj;jpw;F ek;gpf;if Jnuhfk; ,iHf;Fk; tifapYk; jpU.g;gp.tp$auhftd; cjtpahsh; Fw;wbray;fspy; <Lgl;L jdJ flik kw;Wk; bghWg;g[fspypUe;J jtwp bray;gl;Ls;shh;.
Fw;wr;rhl;L – 2.
nkw;fz;lthW jpU.g;gp.tp$auhftd;, cjtpahsh; (jw;fhypf gzpePf;fk;), nkw;fz;l mtuJ bray;fs; K:yk; tq;fpapd; ,jug; 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No. 902 of 2022 gzpahsh;fsplj;jpy; xGq;Fk;, kl;Lg;ghLk; ghjpf;fr; bra;Jk;, bghJ kf;fs; kj;jpapYk;, Tl;Lwt[j;Jiw mYtyh;fs;
kw;Wk; ,izg;g[ rq;f gzpahsh;fs; kj;jpapYk;, kj;jpa tq;fp eph;thfj;jpw;Fk; mtg; bgah; Vw;gLj;jpaJld; eph;thfk; mth; kPJ itj;Js;s ek;gpf;ifia ,Hf;ff; fhuzkhf ,Ue;J tq;fp ew;bgaUf;F fsq;fk; Vw;gLj;jp ek;gpf;if Jnuhfk; bra;Js;shh;.”
(iii) The Enquiry Officer after holding full-fledged enquiry, has held that the charges are proved as against the appellant. Thereafter, a second show- cause notice was issued to the appellant on 17.11.2014 and the Disciplinary Authority after considering the reply submitted by the appellant to the second show-cause notice, dismissed the appellant from service.
(iv) Challenging that, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.6458 of 2015, mainly on the ground that the appellant has not permitted to engage an Advocate at the time of enquiry and that, the Enquiry Officer of the disciplinary proceedings failed to consider the case of the appellant that the jewels had already been handed over to the farmers. Apart from alleging malafides against the office bearers of the Society, the appellant also contended that the enquiry was conducted in a biased manner at the instigation of the second respondent.
5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No. 902 of 2022
(v) The writ petition was contested by the second respondent by filing a detailed counter affidavit. Though the maintainability of the writ petition itself was questioned by the second respondent, the second respondent in his counter affidavit has elaborately narrated about the events with reference to the supporting materials produced before the Enquiry Officer.
(vi) The learned single Judge of this Court after considering the case of the appellant and the respondents, found that the appellant/writ petitioner who submitted his explanation for the notice issued to him, and admitted his guilt by giving a statement, cannot turn around to say that the enquiry was conducted in a biased manner and the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer are unsustainable.
(vii) After referring to the facts and circumstances, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on merits as the learned single Judge found that there is no merit in the contentions raised by the leaned counsel for the writ petitioner.
6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No. 902 of 2022
(viii) Challenging the order of the learned single Judge, the above writ appeal is filed.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the order of the first respondent terminating the appellant from service, is cryptic and that, the first respondent did not consider the explanation offered by the appellant on 13.12.2014 in response to the second show-cause notice dated 17.11.2014.
5. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Enquiry Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority is a standing counsel for the co- operative society and that, he had appeared in a writ petition filed by the petitioner earlier on behalf of the Society. The learned Senior Counsel then submitted that the appellant was not given an opportunity by the Enquiry Officer to get assistance of an Advocate. Since permission was not granted to the appellant to engage an Advocate before the Enquiry Officer, the learned Senior Counsel contended that serious prejudice has been caused to the appellant.
7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No. 902 of 2022
6. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the jewels were actually returned by the appellant to the societies and that the persons, who had pledged the jewels had redeemed the jewels by paying the amount which was due to the Society. This Court is unable to countenance any of the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant.
7. First of all, the appellant in response to the second show-cause notice, has submitted his reply on 13.12.2014. Except pointing out some discrepancies with regard to the number of bags of jewels that were stated to have been stolen or misappropriated by the appellant, there is no substantial case pleaded by the appellant while defending serious charges against him. Further, the appellant has admitted the fact that he paid a sum of Rs.26,40,900/- towards the value of the jewels that were misappropriated by him. In response to the second show- cause notice, the explanation offered by the appellant, gives an indication that the appellant has come forward with a case that the jewels had been actually handed over to the customers after getting the money due from them. However, no document was filed by the appellant to prove such contention. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon a statement which is enclosed in the typed set of papers from Page Nos.79 to 87. However, the 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No. 902 of 2022 learned Senior Counsel is not able to explain the authenticity of the document. In short, the learned Senior Counsel is unable to demonstrate before this Court as to how the document would show that the jewels that were allegedly misappropriated by the appellant were returned to the customers. From the records, it is seen that one of the Societies had recovered jewels from the appellant but gave a statement before the Enquiry Officer about the theft and recovery with additional information that receipt of money as stated by him was at the instance of appellant. This statement was not properly projected before the learned Single Judge. Even according to the learned Senior Counsel, the misappropriation was temporary. The irregularity admitted even before this Court is sufficient to impose punishment.
8. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the Enquiry Officer, who was appointed to conduct the enquiry is a standing counsel for the very same co-operative society, cannot be a valid argument after this length of time. With regard to the allegation that the enquiry was conducted in a biased manner on the ground that the Enquiry Officer has given findings at the instigation of the second respondent, no specific ground is raised even before the Writ Court that the enquiry is vitiated as the Enquiry Officer appointed is the standing 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No. 902 of 2022 counsel for the Society. When the appellant questions the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, it should be at an appropriate stage, not in this appeal, for the first time.
9. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the charges were quite contrary to the documents produced, is not demonstrated before this Court. The learned Senior Counsel is unable to convince this Court as to the authenticity of the documents that are produced in the typed set of papers. When the appellant has paid substantial amount of Rs.26 lakhs and odd admitting that he has misappropriated jewel bags which were pledged in several Societies, the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that some of the jewels were returned to the borrowers after getting the money due, will not mitigate the charges.
10. Having regard to the findings of the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority after giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to submit his explanation to the second show-cause notice, this Court is unable to find any irregularity in the decision making process. It is to be noted that the scope of judicial review in matters like this, is limited. The contentions of the appellant in the memorandum of grounds challenging the findings of the Enquiry Officer 10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.A(MD)No. 902 of 2022 or the Disciplinary Authority, are not sustainable. Absolutely, there is no irregularity or violation of principles of natural justice while dismissing the appellant from service.
11. Having regard to the conduct of the appellant as admitted by him in response to the charge memo as well as the second show-cause notice, this Court is unable to appreciate the misconduct as admitted by him in the course of proceedings. Therefore, the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No Costs.
[S.S.S.R., J.] [S.S.Y., J.]
23.08.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes
PM
11/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)No. 902 of 2022
S.S.SUNDAR, J.
AND
S.SRIMATHY, J.
PM
W.A(MD)No.902 of 2022
23.08.2022
12/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis