Madras High Court
Q.1266 Pottagavayal Primary ... vs Mohammad Nooh Air 1958 Sc 86. It Was A Case ... on 8 June, 2023
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
WP(MD)Nos.13625 & 17332 of 2022
and
WMP(MD)Nos.9679 & 12642 of 2022
in WP(MD)No.13625 of 2022 : -
Q.1266 Pottagavayal Primary Agriculture
Co-operative Credit Society,
Rep.by its President, Paramakudi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Petitioner
v.
1.The Regional Joint Registrar /
Revisional Authority,
under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative
Societies Act, 1983, Ramanathapuram Region,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.V.Karunanithi ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned
order made in Na.ka.798/2021/SaPa dated 06.06.2022 passed by the first
respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Prithviraj
For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan,
Additional Government Pleader for R1
Mr.J.Lawrance for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
in WP(MD)No.17332 of 2022 : -
V.Karunanithi ... Petitioner
v.
1.The Regional Joint Registrar /
Revisional Authority,
under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative
Societies Act, 1983,
Ramanathapuram Region,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.Q.1266 Pottagavayal Primary Agriculture
Co-operative Credit Society,
Rep.by its President, Paramakudi Taluk,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the
Impugned Order of Punishment of Stoppage of Increment without Cumulative
effect and refusal of back wages passed by the 1st respondent vide his
proceedings in Na.Ka.No.798/2021/Sa.Pa dated 06.06.2021 alone are
concerned and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the 2 nd
respondent to grant the petitioner back wages and other attendant benefits from
the date of his suspension i.e. 06.01.2020 till the date of his reinstatement into
service of the 2nd respondent`s society and for other reliefs.
For Petitioner : Mr. J.Lawrance
For Respondents : Mr.K.S.Selvaganesan,
Additional Government Pleader for R1
Mr.P.R.Prithviraj for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/10
COMMON ORDER
Since both the writ petitions are interlinked, they are taken together for final disposal.
2.One Karunanithi was working as Clerk in Q.1266 Pottagavayal Primary Agriculture Co-operative Credit Society, Paramakudi Taluk, Ramanathapuram District. He was suspended from service on 06.01.2020. Charge memo was issued on 30.04.2020. Explanation was given by him. Since it was not satisfactory, enquiry was ordered. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 20.12.2020 holding that three out of five charges were proved. Based on the same, show cause notice was issued. On 25.01.2021, the management of the society passed an order dismissing him from service. Aggrieved by the same, Karunanithi filed revision petition before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ramanathapuram Division. The Joint Registrar vide order dated 06.06.2022 came to the conclusion that only one of the charges was proved and set aside the punishment of dismissal. He directed the management to reinstate him in service forthwith. Aggrieved by the same, the society filed WP(MD)No. 13625 of 2022. Since back wages were denied, Karunanithi filed WP(MD)No. 17332 of 2022. The learned counsel for the society as well as the learned counsel for the employee reiterated the contentions set out in the respective https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/10 pleadings. While the management wanted this Court to set aside the impugned order passed by the revisional authority and restore the original order passed by the disciplinary authority, Karunanithi wanted this Court to go one step further. Even he wanted this Court to set aside the order of the first respondent to the extent it has held that the third charge, namely, disobedience of the order of the superior is proved. In the charge memo, the following charges have been set out :
“(a) Unauthorized absence for a period of 31 days from Jully 2019 to December 2019
(b) Canvassing for a political party in the local body election in the year 2019
(c) Disobedience of the orders of the superior
(d) Taking away the documents of the society without permission
(e) Not receiving the suspension order and using abusive words against the office bearers of the society.” Out of five charges, the enquiry officer came to the conclusion that charges 1, 3 and 5 alone were established. The revisional authority came to the conclusion that charges 1 and 5 also have not been established. The writ court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. Unless the findings are shown to be perverse, the writ court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The findings of the revisional authority as regards 1 and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/10 5 are upheld. The finding as regards charge no.3 is set aside since the third charge is vague. It is a well settled legal proposition that charges must be precise and not vague. In Anant R. Kulkarni v. Y.P. Education Society, (2013) 6 SCC 515, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. In G.V. Aswathanarayana v. Central Bank of India, 2003 SCC OnLine Kar 330, the Karnataka High Court held as follows :
“It is well established that if a vague charge is given to a delinquent, it is a fatal defect, which vitiates the entire proceedings. It is also relevant to notice that the vagueness in the charge is not excused on the plea that the employee concerned should be deemed to have known the facts correctly. It should not be left to the delinquent official to find out or imagine what the charges against him are and it is for the employer to frame specific charges with full particulars.” No specific allegation has been made out under Charge No.3 and it is quite general and vague in nature. On this ground, The order of the revisional authority is interfered with to this extent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/10
3.The learned counsel for the employee would point out that one Dhanapal, the president of the society was a contestant in the local body election in the year 2019. He further contended that the contest was between Dhanapal and another relative of the petitioner. Dhanapal lost in the election.
According to him, it is this defeat that had led to the issuance of the impugned charge memo. My attention is drawn to the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 25.01.2021. In the said order, the following averments are found :
“,e;epiyapy;> jpU.it.fUzhepjp> rpw;nwOj;jh; (j.g.eP) kPJ Rkj;jg;gl;Ls;s 2tJ Fw;wr;rhl;L cs;tprhuizapd; NghJ ep&gpf;fg;gltpy;iynad;whYk; $l rq;f eph;thff;FO jiytUk; kw;Wk; mjd; ngUk;ghyhd cWg;gpdh;fSk; cs;tprhuiz mYtyhpd; ,e;epiyg;ghl;bypUe;J khWgl;Ls;sdh;. Fw;wk; Rkj;jg;gl;lth; cs;shl;rp Njh;jypd; NghJ rq;f gzpfis Gwf;fzpj;J tpl;L xU murpay; fl;rp rhh;ghf Njh;jy; gzpfspy; <Lgl;L te;jjw;F> eph;thff;FO jiytUk; kw;Wk; ngUk;ghyhd eph;thff;FO cWg;gpdh;fSNk> Neub rhl;rpaq;fshf ,Ue;Js;sdh;. ,jw;fhd Mtz rhl;rpaq;fs; VJkpy;yhj NghjpYk;> gy Neub rhl;rpaq;fs; Fw;wk;
Rkj;jg;gl;lth; Njh;jy; gzpfspy; <Lgl;Ls;sij xg;Gf;
nfhz;Ls;sdh;. NkYk;> cs;tprhuizapy;
ep&gpf;fg;glhj ,f;Fw;wr;rhl;L Fwpj;J Fw;wk; Rkj;jg;gl;lth;
kPz;Lk; ,f;Fw;wr;rhl;il kWf;Fk; tpjkhf jdJ jfty; ngWk;
chpikr; rl;l kDtpy; tphpthf tpsf;fnkhd;iw
mspj;Js;shh;. ,thpd; ,t;tpsf;fNk ,th; rq;f eph;thff;FO
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/10
jiytiu Cuhl;rp kd;w jiyth; Njh;jypy; vt;thNwDk;
Njhw;fbf;f Ntz;Lnkd;w Kidg;Gld; Njh;jy; gzp Ghpe;Js;shh; vd;gjw;F rhd;whtzkhf tpsq;FfpwJ. ,e;epiyapy; jdJ kidtp fhykhdij fhuzk; fhl;b> jhd; Njh;jy; gzpapy; <Lgltpy;iy vdj; njhptpj;jpUg;gJ nghUj;jkhdjhf ,y;iy.
jdJ kidtpapd; ,wg;ig fhuzk; fhl;b Fw;wk;
Rkj;jg;gl;lth; ,uf;fk; Njl Kide;Js;shh;. ntt;NtW
fhyf;fl;lq;fspy; eilngw;Ws;s epfo;Tfis xd;Wf; nfhd;W
njhlh;GWj;jp Fw;wk; Rkj;jg;gl;lth; mspj;Js;s tpsf;fk; Vw;Wf; nfhs;sf;$bajhf ,y;iy. ,e;epiyapy; rq;f eph;thff;FOtpd; ngUk;ghyhd cWg;gpdh;fs;> ,f;Fw;wr;rhl;Lk; re;jh;g;g rhl;rpaq;f;s topahfTk; kw;Wk; Neub rhl;rpaq;fs; %ykhfTk;
ep&gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhfNt KbTf;F te;Js;sdh;.” From a reading of the disciplinary authority's order, one can very easily come to the conclusion that the allegation made by the employee is highly probable. The disciplinary authority, who passed the order of dismissal, himself has conceded that he is an eye witness. The disciplinary authority, having personal interest in the matter, ought to have recused himself. The doctrine of necessity cannot be pressed into service.
4.I am satisfied that the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated by mala fides. The President of the Society having lost the election nurtured a feeling that Thiru.Karunanithi is also responsible for his defeat. That is why, one of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/10 the charges framed against Thiru.Karunanithi is that he canvassed in the local body elections. The enquiry officer did not find the same to be proved. The disciplinary authority could have dissented from the said finding. But the cat was out of the bag when he disclosed his personal knowledge. This clearly vitiates the entire proceedings. There is a catena of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that a member of the enquiry committee cannot depose as a witness in the proceedings. One such decision is The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86. It was a case in which the Deputy Superintendent while conducting an inquiry against a constable, decided to give testimony. The court held that this act of the presiding officer disclosed considerable bias against the constable. The entire proceedings stood vitiated. In APSRT vs. Sri Satyanarayana Transports (AIR 1965 SC 1303), a Minister had sought the help of the petitioners to win an election but they were unable to do so. He was subsequently defeated. The petitioners were likely to be affected by a scheme and the Minister heard their objections and approved the scheme. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Minister is bound to be biased against the petitioners and quashed the order of the Minister as it was vitiated by personal bias.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/10
5.Bias in any form, can vitiate an administrative action. The disciplinary authority should not have personal stake. In this case, personal bias of the president of the society is apparent. On this sole ground, the entire action has to be nullified. The management of the society is directed to reinstate Mr.Karunanithi forthwith. He is entitled to all the back wages and also other consequential benefits. WP(MD)No.13625 of 2022 is dismissed. WP(MD)No. 17332 of 2022 is allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
08.06.2023 SKM To The Regional Joint Registrar / Revisional Authority, under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, Ramanathapuram Region, Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/10 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
SKM WP(MD)Nos.13625 & 17332 of 2022 and WMP(MD)Nos.9679 & 12642 of 2022 08.06.2023 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/10