Partly allowed

K.Chinnuswamy v. the Deputy Registrar of

Madras HC25 Sept 2023CRP/4723/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Court examined surcharge proceedings against a fertiliser salesman. The Court held the petitioner inducted from charges of cash deficit, cheque withdrawal, and marketing failure due to lack of direct responsibility, remitting excess cash book entry charge for fresh enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner exonerated from charges 1, 2, and 4. Charge 3 remitted to Deputy Registrar for fresh enquiry to fix responsibility on appropriate person.

K.Chinnuswamy Vs the Deputy Registrar of — Cooperative Societies | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P(NPD).No.4723 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 25.09.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

C.R.P(NPD).No.4723 of 2017 & C.M.P.No.22246 of 2017

¶7

K. Chinnusamy S/o. Karuppanna Servai

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Office of the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Namakkal District.

¶11

The Special Officer, S.1320Sevanthipatty Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Limited, Sevanthipatty Post, Namakkal.

¶12

P. Balasubramaniam, Ex. Special Officer, Now Special Officer of Namakkal District Co-operative Printing Press, Namakkal.

¶13

R. Ramasamy S/o. Ramasamy Gounder, 5. M. Rani W/o. Late K. Madhiyalagan, 6. M. Sivakumar S/o. Late K. Madhiyalagan, 7. M. Rameshkumar S/o. Late K. Madhiyalagan .. Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order passed in C.M.A(CS).No.23 of 2012 dated 07.07.2017 by the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal

¶15

1/11

¶16

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

¶17

C.R.P(NPD).No.4723 of 2017

¶18

confirming the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings bearing No.Na.Ka.475/2012 dated 30.06.2012 under section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr. G. Ilamurugu

¶20

For Respondent 1 : Mr. B. Tamil Nidhi, Additional Government Pleader (CS)

¶21

For Respondent 2 : Mr. L.P. Shanmuga Sundaram

¶22

For Respondents 3 to 7 : No appearance

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The Civil Revision Petition arises against an order passed in CMA(CS).No.23 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Namakkal.

¶25

The Appeal before the Principal District Court arose under

¶26

Section 152 (1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The appeal arose against the order of surcharge passed by the first respondent/the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.475/12/Sa.Pa. dated 30.06.2012. As per the proceedings, the petitioner was found guilty of four charges. The appeal

¶27

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

¶28

2/11

¶29

C.R.P(NPD).No.4723 of 2017

¶30

also ended against him. Hence, this revision.

¶31

The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a fertiliser

¶32

salesman with the second respondent society. The first respondent had ordered an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act 1983. On the basis of the enquiry report, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 01.02.2012. The surcharge proceedings were conducted on several dates. Sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner and finally, surcharge order was passed fixing the liability of Rs.19,81,002/- together with interest at 12% per annum till the date of realisation on the petitioner, one Ramasamy and the legal heirs of one Mathiyalagan.

¶33

Heard Mr.G.Ilamurugu, learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶34

Mr.B.Tamil Nidhi, learned Additional Government Pleader for the first respondent and Mr. L.P. Shanmuga Sundaram, learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶35

The charges on four heads are as follows:

¶36

Item	Particulars	Amount	Persons responsible
No.
1	Cash Deficit found on	10,42,752/-	1.R.Ramasamy
	14.05.2011 bySec.81 and		2.Thepetitioner

¶37

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

¶38

3/11

¶39

C.R.P(NPD).No.4723 of 2017

¶40

	82 Officers		3.Legal heirs of Late.K.Mathiyalagan (Ex.Manager)
2	Not bringing into the Society account, the encashed cheque amounts	9,25,000/-	1.R.Ramasamy 2.The petitioner 3.Legal heirs of
	from Valayapatty CCB Branch		Late.K.Mathiyalagan (Ex.Manager) 4.P.Balasubramanian The then Special Officer
3	Excess writing of Rs.2,000/- in cash book	2,000/-	1.R.Ramasamy 2.Thepetitioner
4	Caused loss due to non- sale of Agricultural inputs, namely I.R.20 and ADR rice in time	11,250/-	The petitioner
	Total	19,81,002/-

¶41

The issue before the Court is whether the civil revision petitioner had caused a loss of Rs.19,81,002/-

¶42

I would deal first with each of the heads separately. The enquiry

¶43

report has been placed before me for perusal. I have carefully gone through the same.

¶44

There is no dispute between the parties that Ramasamy was the

¶45

Secretary. On the Special Officer taking charge, the said Ramasamy was

¶46

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

¶47

4/11

¶48

C.R.P(NPD).No.4723 of 2017

¶49

placed under suspension and one Mathiyalagan was appointed as the Secretary. The day to day affairs were being run by the said Mathiyalagan under the guidance of the Special Officer, Mr.Balasubramaniam. As per the proceedings of the Special Officer dated 11.08.2008, the following works were entrusted to the civil revision petitioner:

¶50

2/ eiff;fld; tH';f gjpntLfs;. ,Ug;g[ gjpntLfs; eiff;fld; tH';f r';f brayhsUld; nrh;e;J Tl;lhf eiffSk; ,Ug;g[fs; ghJfhg;g[ itj;jy;.

¶51

3/ r';f brayhsh; mt;tnghJ ,Lk; ,ju gzp[fs; nkw;bfhs;Sjy;

¶52

4/ t';fp cWg;gpdh;fSf;F eiff;fld;. kj;jpa fhR fld;. KLC fld;. eiff;fld;. Jtiz nehl;O!; rhh;g[ bra;jy;. tl;o fzf;fpLjy; kw;Wk; tR{y; gzpfs; nkw;bfhs;Sjy;/

¶53

5/ jzpf;iff;F njitahd g[s;sp tpgu';fis jahh; bra;jy;/

¶54

6/ mt;tnghJ cah; mYtyh;fs; nfhUk; USP g[s;sp tpgu';fis jahh; bra;jy;/

¶55

5/11

¶56

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

¶57

C.R.P(NPD).No.4723 of 2017

¶58

With respect to the first head which relates to the cash deficit found, for which, Mr.Ramasamy, the civil revision petitioner and the legal heirs of Mathiyalagan were held responsible, during the relevant time, Mathiyalagan was in-charge of the society. The role of the petitioner was only maintenance of the books and not directly the handling of amounts. Therefore, the person who should have been held responsible is Mathiyalagan, but unfortunately, since he had committed suicide, his legal heirs / representatives should be responsible. In order to pin down the responsibility on the petitioner, it should have been demonstrated before the Court through the enquiry report as well as the surcharge proceedings that the petitioner was responsible for handling of the amounts. That being absent, the first charge fails. Therefore, the petitioner necessarily will have to be exonerated.

¶59

Insofar as the second charge which relates to failure to bring into the society accounts, the encashed cheque from Valayapatty, Central Coopertive Branch is concerned, I went through the records in the enquiry report. It shows that the amounts which were received by the

¶60

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

¶61

6/11

¶62

C.R.P(NPD).No.4723 of 2017

¶63

society were withdrawn by the said Mathiyalagan and the Special officer through cheques drawn on "ourselves". The petitioner being a fertiliser salesman had absolutely no role either in issuance of cheques or in the withdrawal of the amounts. For the very fact that he was an employee during the relevant time, I cannot fix the responsibilities for the amounts withdrawn by Mathialagan and by Special Officer on the petitioner. Therefore, even on that charge, he has to be necessarily exonerated.

¶64

Insofar as the third charge is concerned, it is for excess writing of Rs.2000 in the cash book. A perusal of the enquiry report as well as the order of the appellate authority shows that instead of endorsing the amount in the cash book as Rs.37,500/- what had been endorsed was Rs.39,500/-.

¶65

A perusal of the role of the petitioner which has been extracted above shows, the petitioner was in charge of the maintenance of books. In the revision preferred by R.Ramasamy, I found that the report had not fixed the responsibility on the individuals, but had generally fixed it on Ramasamy and the petitioner. Therefore, insofar as the third charge is concerned, the order of the appellate authority as well as the surcharge https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/11

¶66

C.R.P(NPD).No.4723 of 2017

¶67

proceedings are set aside and the matter is remitted to the first respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry and take a call as to whether Ramasamy is responsible or the petitioner is responsible.

¶68

Insofar as the fourth charge is concerned, I found that the charge is extremely curious. It states that the petitioner had caused loss to the society by not selling agricultural products viz., IR20, ADR rice in time. The job of the society is to sell the items to its members who approach it for purchase. It is not the role of the fertiliser salesman to go door to door and do marketing for the purpose of sale of these items. Unless and until the customers come to the society to purchase the materials, there will not be a sale. As rightly pointed by Mr.G.Ilamurugu, learned counsel for the petitioner, if the materials were available and the petitioner did not sell the same wantonly, then I can fix the responsibility on him. However, that is not the situation here. As marketing is not one of the roles which had been allotted to the civil revision petitioner, the failure to sell the same cannot be laid at the doors of the petitioner. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal in C.M.A.(CS).No.23 of 2012 8/11

¶69

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

¶70

C.R.P(NPD).No.4723 of 2017

¶71

in confirming the order of the first respondent in Na.Ka.475/2012/Sa.Pa.

¶72

dated 30.06.2012 is partly set aside.

¶73

In the result, the petitioner is exonerated from charges 1, 2 and

¶74

Insofar as the third charge is concerned, the matter is remitted back to

¶75

the first respondent for conducting a fresh enquiry and to fix the responsibility on the appropriate person.

¶76

With the above direction, this CRP is partly allowed. No costs.

¶77

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶78

25.09.2023

¶79

Index:Yes/No Speaking order/Non speaking order Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶80

¶81

¶82

The Principal District Judge, Namakkal.

¶83

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

¶84

9/11

¶85

C.R.P(NPD).No.4723 of 2017

¶86

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J. nl

¶87

C.R.P(NPD).No.4723 of 2017

¶88

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

¶89

10/11

¶90

C.R.P(NPD).No.4723 of 2017

¶91

25.09.2023

¶92

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

¶93

11/11

K.Chinnuswamy v. the Deputy Registrar of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Chinnuswamy v. the Deputy Registrar of

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

M/S. Central Bank of India, Vs Annapooranai

R.J.Haridoss Vs N.Loganathan

Premakumari Vs V.R. Maruthappan(died)

M/s.Rane Engine Valves Ltd., Vs Presiding Officer

Mrs. Lalithamani Deivasigamani Vs Mr. Gopal Arumugam

R. Viswanathan Vs Usharani