Disposed

M.v.Raja v. the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative

Madras HC6 Dec 2022WA(MD)/395/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench allowed an appellant to submit an explanation to a duplicate charge memo issued for charges already finalized with punishment. The matter was disposed of without interfering with the earlier finding that the appeal was generally untenable.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to appellant to submit explanation within two weeks; respondent directed to consider it in light of prior punishment and pass order on merits.

M.v.Raja Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.A(MD) No.395 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 06.12.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

W.A.(MD) No.395 of 2022 and

¶7

C.M.P(MD) No.4000 of 2022

M.V.Raja

... Appellant

-vs-

The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, (Housing), Madurai Region, Madurai.

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Section I5 of Letters Patent against the order dated 08.03.2022 made in W.P.(MD)No.398 of 2020.

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.P.R.Prithiviraj

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.N.Ramesh Arumugam, Government Advocate.

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 1 of 10_

¶17

W.A(MD) No.395 of 2022

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J .)

¶20

Challenging the order passed by this Court, dated 08.03.2022, made in W.P.(MD)No.398 of 2020, the appellant has come forward with this writ appeal.

¶21

2. The appellant / writ petitioner has filed writ petitions in W.P. (MD)No.398 of 2020 and W.P.(MD)No.2878 of 2021, challenging the charge memo dated 27.09.2019 and also seeking for a direction to furnish all the documents listed out in Annexure – III of the charge memo in Na.Ka.No.624/2019/Pa.thou, dated 27.09.2019, respectively.

¶22

3 . The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶23

The appellant / writ petitioner is working as Co-operative Sub-

¶24

Registrar and while he was working in the Public Distribution System, on 22.02.2013, the respondent has framed the following charges as against the appellant / writ petitioner:

¶25

“ Fwwr; rhl; L 1;

¶26

NkNy nrhy;yg;gl;l jpU.vk;.tP. ,uh[h $l;LwT rhh;gjpthsh; 18.07.2009 Kjy; 29.09.2009 tiu> 21.10.2009 Kjy; 15.12.2009 tiu kw;Wk; 01.04.2010 Kjy; 17.07.2012 Kba cs;s fhyq;fspy; V-2890 v];gpI Copah;fs;

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

_____________ Page 2 of 10_

¶29

W.A(MD) No.395 of 2022

¶30

kw;Wk; nghJr; Nrit $l;LwT tPl;Ltrjp rq;fj;jpy; jdp mYtyuhfg; gzpahw;wpAs;shh;. ,th; jdp mYtyuhfg; gzpGhpe;j fhyj;jpy; rq;fj;jpw;F nrhe;jkhd fhyp ,lj;ij cWg;gpdh; my;yhj egUf;F tpw;gid nra;jij fzpfhzpj;J jLf;fj; jtwpajd; %yk; ,th; jdJ flik kw;Wk; nghWg;gpypUe;J jtwpapUgpgJld; gjpthsh; (tPl;Ltrjp) mth;fspd; Rw;wwpf;iffs; kw;Wk; muR Mizf;F KuzhfTk; nray;gl;Ls;shh;.

¶31

Fwwr; rhl; L 2;

¶32

NkNy nrhy;yg;gl;l jpU.vk;.tP. ,uh[h $l;LwT rhh;gjpthsh; NkNy nrhy;yg;gl;l fhyj;jpy; Nkw;gb rq;fj;jpy; jdp mYtyuhfg; nghWg;G tfpj;j fhyj;jpy; rq;fj;jhy; 30.03.2012 md;W KiwNflhf tpw;gid nra;ag;gl;l fhyp ,lj;jpw;Fhpa njhif rq;f fzf;fpy; tuT itf;fg;glhkYk;> njhif t#ypf;fg;glhky; ,Ue;jjpd; %yKk;> fz;fhzpf;fj; jtwpajd; %yKk; rq;fj;jpd; md;whl gzpfspy; ftdkpd;wp ,th; ,Ue;Js;shh;. ,jd; %yk; jdp mYtyh; vd;w Kiwapy; ,th; jdJ flik nghWg;gpypUe;J jtwp nray;gl;Ls;shh;.

¶33

Fwwr; rhl; L 3;

¶34

murhiz vz; 224 tPl;Ltrjp kw;Wk; efh;g;Gw tsh;r;rpj;Jiw ehs; 27.11.09d;gb rq;fj;jpw;F nrhe;jkhd fhypaplk; tpw;gid nra;ag;gltpy;iy. Fiwe;j gl;rk; muR topfhl;b kjpg;G $l ngwg;glhjjhy; rq;fj;jpw;F ngUk; epjpapog;G Vw;gl;Ls;sJ. ,e;j epfo;Tfs; %yk; jdp mYtyh; jdJ flik nghWg;gpypUe;J jtwp nray;gl;Ls;shh;. ”

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 3 of 10_

¶36

W.A(MD) No.395 of 2022

¶37

4 . The appellant / writ petitioner appeared for the enquiry and the

¶38

Enquiry Officer has submitted his report to the respondent and based on the Enquiry Officer's report, the respondent imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. The said punishment imposed by the respondent has become final. That being so, the respondent has issued a fresh charge memo, by his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.624/2019/Pa.thou, dated 27.09.2019 for the very same set of charges. Thus, the appellant / writ petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.398 of 2020, challenging the aforesaid charge memo dated 27.09.2019. Pending the aforesaid writ petition, the appellant / writ petitioner has also filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.2878 of 2021, seeking for a direction to provide all the documents listed out in Annexure – III of the charge memo dated 27.09.2019. This Court, by order dated 08.03.2022, disposed of the writ petition in W.P.(MD)No. 2878 of 2021, by observing as follows:

¶39

“7. In the present case, only the grievance set out by the writ petitioner is that the documents are not furnished. However, it is to be furnished during the course of enquiry or the petitioner may be allowed to peruse the documents in the present of the Enquiry Officer, if it is a confidential document or otherwise as the case may be.

¶40

8. With this clarification, the Writ Petition stands

¶41

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 4 of 10_

¶42

W.A(MD) No.395 of 2022

¶43

disposed of. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

¶44

5 . This Court, by order dated 08.03.2022, dismissed the writ

¶45

petition in W.P.(MD)No.398 of 2020, by observing as follows:

¶46

“5. In view of the fact that already the charges are pending for about 2 ½ years, the respondent is directed to proceed with the enquiry and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner is directed to cooperate for early disposal of the disciplinary proceedings. In the event of non-co-operation on the part of the writ petitioner, the same may be recorded in the proceedings itself and in such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief on the ground of delay in disposing the disciplinary proceedings.

¶47

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

¶48

Challenging the said order, the appellant / writ petitioner has filed the present Writ Appeal.

¶49

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that

¶50

the charge memo dated 27.09.2019 has been issued for the very same set of charges in the charge memo dated 22.02.2013, for which, the respondent has already imposed the punishment against the appellant.

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 5 of 10_

¶52

W.A(MD) No.395 of 2022

¶53

The learned Single Judge, has failed to consider the said fact and on that ground, the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be interfered with.

¶54

7 . Heard the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶55

8. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(MD)No.398 of 2020, it is seen that earlier occasion, the respondent has issued a charge memo dated 22.02.2013, to the appellant and on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the respondent has already imposed punishment against the appellant / writ petitioner and it has become final. However, for the very same set of charges, the charge memo dated 27.09.2019, has been issued and the appellant has challenged the said charge memo before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.398 of 2020 and the writ Court without considering the fact that for the very same set of charges, the respondent has already imposed the punishment against the appellant and it has become final, directed the respondent to proceed with the enquiry and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible. However, for the reason best known to appellant / writ

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 6 of 10_

¶57

W.A(MD) No.395 of 2022

¶58

petitioner, he has also filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.2878 of 2021, seeking for a direction to provide all the documents listed out in Annexure – III of the charge memo dated 27.09.2019, though the same has become final and this Court has also directed to furnish the document to the appellant during the course of enquiry.

¶59

9. We are of the view that when the appellant / writ petitioner has approached this Court for the aforesaid relief to furnish the document to submit explanation, now challenging the charge memo is untenable. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the writ appeal. However, we inclined to grant liberty to the appellant / writ petitioner to submit his explanation to the charge memo dated 27.09.2019, to the respondent within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the document furnished to the appellant / writ petitioner. On receipt of such explanation, the respondent is directed to consider the same, by taking into consideration of the fact that for the very same charges, punishment has already been imposed against the appellant / writ petitioner, and pass order on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 7 of 10_

¶61

W.A(MD) No.395 of 2022

¶62

10 . With the above direction, this Writ Appeal stands disposed of.

¶63

No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶64

[D.K.K., J.] [R.V., J.]

¶65

06.12.2022

¶66

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vsm

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 8 of 10_

¶68

W.A(MD) No.395 of 2022

¶69

¶70

The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, (Housing), Madurai Region, Madurai.

¶71

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 9 of 10_

¶72

W.A(MD) No.395 of 2022

¶73

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J. and R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶74

vsm

¶75

W.A.(MD) No.395 of 2022

¶76

06.12.2022

¶77

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis _____________ Page 10 of 10_

M.v.Raja v. the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.v.Raja v. the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.P.Karuppasamy Vs the District Collector

Murugalakshmi, W/O. Rajan, Vs the District Collector

P.Balamurugan Vs the Secretary to Government

Sundaravadivel Servi Vs the Superintendent of Police

B. Nagasubramanian, Vs The Commissioner

O.K.Prakash Bapu, Vs Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited