Allowed

S.Paulraj v. the Registrar of Coop.

Madras HC18 Mar 2014WA/1306/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside a single judge's order remanding a disciplinary matter for a fresh enquiry. The court held that since the appellant had superseded by superannuation and no witnesses were cited to prove the charges, a de novo enquiry would be an empty formality. The respondents were directed to pass consequential orders within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

The order of remand was set aside, the writ appeal was allowed, and the respondents were directed to pass appropriate orders within 12 weeks.

S.Paulraj Vs the Registrar of Coop. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 18.03.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

Writ Appeal No.1306 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶6

S.Paulraj ... Appellant vs. 1.The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Chennai-10. 2.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Coop., Food and Consumer Protection Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. ... Respondents Writ appeal filed against the orders of this Court dated 17.12.2012 made in W.P.No.24227 of 2012. W.P.No.24227 of 2012:

¶7

Prayer:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to G.O. 3 (D) No.10, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (CE 2) Department dated 06.08.2012 of the second respondent, quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to permit the petitioner to retire from service with effect from 30.06.2005 with all attendant and consequential benefits.

¶8

For Appellant : Mr.S.Venkataraman For Respondents : Mr.STS. Moorthy, Government Pleader, assisted by Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi, Government Advocate. JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J)

¶9

The present writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 17.12.2012 made in W.P.No.24227 of 2012.

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

The appellant was working as Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies cum Principal, Samiappa Cooperative Training Institute, Thanjavur and he was promoted as Deputy Registrar / Special Officer of Athur Agricultural Producers Marketing Society, Salem from 7.11.1994 to 7.12.1996. A charge memo dated 25.1.2000 came to be issued against the appellant alleging that during the period of his employment as Special Officer of the above said society, he was negligent in discharging his duties in the sale of cotton to Srivilliputhur Cooperative Marketing Society and Chengam Cooperative Marketing Society, contrary and violation to the provisions of the bye-laws of the above said society, Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act and Rules and thereby caused loss to the society with corresponding gain to him. The appellant, on receipt of the said charge memo, submitted his explanation dated 10.6.2001, denying the charges and the said explanation was found unsatisfactory and therefore, an Enquiry Officer in the rank of Additional Registrar, was appointed. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 27.12.2002 holding that two charges have been proved and the appellant was furnished with the enquiry report on 23.1.2003. The appellant submitted his further explanation on 23.2.2003. While so, on the date of retirement viz., on 30.6.2005, the appellant was placed under suspension because of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and in this regard, he has filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.29931 of 2008 praying for appropriate direction to pass final orders on the departmental enquiry initiated against him and this Court, vide order 18.12.2008, disposed of the said writ petition, with a direction to the concerned authority to pass final orders, within eight weeks. Since the said order was not complied with, the appellant filed a contempt petition before this Court in Cont.P.No.497 of 2009. It is also the case of the appellant that simultaneously, a criminal prosecution was also launched against him for having caused loss to the extent of Rs.43,98,895/-. He filed an application for discharging him from the criminal case and the same was dismissed. As against the same, he filed a criminal revision in Crl.R.C.No.48 of 2007 before this Court and this Court, vide order dated 14.6.2012, allowed the criminal revision case and consequently, discharged him from the criminal case. The departmental proceedings, thereafter, culminated into the order of removal from service by the second respondent in G.O.3(D) No.10, Cooperative, Food and Consumer Protection (CE2) Department dated 6.8.2012 and the same was challenged by filing a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.24227 of 2012. Before the learned Single Judge, it was contended that in Annexure -IV of the charge memo, no witness has been cited to substantiate the charges. But, the said aspect was not taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge and having taken into consideration the fact that the appellant has attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.2005, the learned Single Judge set aside the impugned order of the second respondent passed in G.O.3(D) No.10, Cooperative, Food and Consumer Protection (CE2) Department dated 6.8.2012 and remitted the matter back to the respondents to conduct a

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

fresh enquiry in accordance with law, by providing reasonable opportunity to the appellant. The learned Single Judge, while arriving at the said conclusion, has also noted that though it was contended on behalf of the respondents that documents were marked and witnesses were examined, no proof whatsoever has been produced before the Court and the learned Single Judge has also perused the enquiry report and found that absolutely, there is no indication to the effect that the documents were marked and the witnesses were examined. Aggrieved over the order of remand, the writ petitioner has filed the present writ appeal.

¶14

Mr.S.Venkataraman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has invited the attention of this Court to the charge memo dated 25.1.2000 and submitted that the department placed reliance upon the documents mentioned in Annexure-III and Annnexure-IV speaks about the list of witnesses. In Annexure-IV, in the column list of witnesses, it has been stated as 'Nil' and hence, in the absence of any witnesses, it is difficult for them to sustain the charge against the appellant and in fact, the learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration the said fact and set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter. Considering the fact that the appellant has already attained the age of superannuation and he was not permitted to retire by placing the suspension order, this Court may pass appropriate orders.

¶15

Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents vehemently contended that the appellant caused loss to the concerned society with corresponding monetary gain to him and taking into consideration that the appellant has already attained the age of superannuation, the learned Single Judge remitted the matter to conduct enquiry afresh. Thus, he seeks for the dismissal of the writ appeal.

¶16

We have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶17

The charge memo came to be issued on 25.1.2000 and as already stated above, in Annexure-IV of the charge memo, in the list of witnesses column, it has been stated as 'Nil'. The department placed reliance upon the documents for the period from 10.12.1995 to 10.3.1996 and in the considered opinion of this Court, because of the non-mentioning of any witness, who are going to speak about the documents, it may be extremely difficult for the department to sustain the charge. That apart, from the date of alleged incident, more than 18 years have lapsed and it was also pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that simultaneously, criminal prosecution was also launched against the appellant and the appellant has filed an application for discharging him from the criminal case and it was dismissed and challenging the same, the appellant filed a criminal revision before this Court in

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

Crl.R.C.No.48 of 2007 and this Court allowed the said revision and the appellant was discharged from the criminal case. Further it is to be noted that in the surcharge proceedings, a finding came to be rendered against the appellant and challenging the same, the appellant filed a civil miscellaneous appeal in C.M.A (CS) No.48 of 2004 and the same is pending before the Special Tribunal for Cooperative cases at Salem.

¶20

This Court, in the above facts and circumstances, is of the considered view that no purpose will be served by ordering de novo enquiry against the appellant, considering the fact that the appellant had already attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.2005 and he has been placed under suspension on the date of retirement and he was not permitted to retire from service. It is very pertinent to point out at this juncture, in the absence of any witnesses, who have to speak about the documents for the period from 10.12.1995 to 10.3.1996, conducting of de novo enquiry can be stated as "empty formality".

¶21

In the result, the order of the learned Single Judge in remanding the matter alone, is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. Since the writ appeal came to be allowed and the impugned order in remanding the matter came to be set aside, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate and consequential orders, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the order passed in this writ appeal can in no way prejudice the disposal of C.M.A (CS) No.48 of 2004 pending on the file of Special Tribunal for Cooperative Cases at Salem and the said case is to be disposed of on its own merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/ Asst.Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub.Asst.Registrar

sbi To

1.The Registrar of Cooperative Societies,Chennai-10.

¶27

2.The Secretary to Government, Coop., Food and Consumer Protection Department,

¶28

Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

¶29

+1 cc to Mr.S.Venkataraman,Advocate, SR. No.13532 +1 cc to the Government Pleader, SR. No.13499

¶30

W.A.No.1306 of 2013 tad(co)pmk.25.3.2014

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Paulraj v. the Registrar of Coop.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Paulraj v. the Registrar of Coop.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Tamilnadu Vs a.Rajeswari

Under Secretary to Govt Vs Noorjahan

The State of Tamilnadu Vs a Kalaikumar

S.Sivananthavadivel Vs the District Collector

R.Keerthivarman Vs the District Education Officer

The Union of India Vs Shri R. Murugamalai