Dismissed

Selvaraj v. the Pettavaithalai Primary

Madras HC9 Feb 2023CRP(MD)/2049/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This civil revision petition challenged an order confirming surcharge proceedings initiated against a former bank secretary for misappropriation charges spanning 1987-1993. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's brief suspension period did not absolve liability and the Tribunal acted within its powers.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition challenging the surcharge proceedings is dismissed. No costs awarded. Connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Selvaraj Vs the Pettavaithalai Primary — Company and Corporate | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.2049 of 2012

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

RESERVED ON: 02.02.2023

¶4

DELIVERED ON: 09.02.2023

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶7

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.2049 of 2012

¶8

and MP(MD).No.2 of 2012

¶9

Selvaraj

¶10

Former Secretary (In-charge) Pettavaithalai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank Pettavaithalai Trichy

¶11

...Petitioner/Appellant

¶12

¶13

1.The Pettavaithalai Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society by its Special Officer Trichy

¶14

2.The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kajamalai, Trichy -20

¶15

...Respondents /Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Civil Revision Case is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., to set aside the order passed in C.M.A(CS).No.37 of 2009 dated 05.06.2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruchirappalli confirming the

¶17

1/7

¶18

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

¶19

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.2049 of 2012

¶20

Surcharge proceedings in Na.Ka.11017/93/Sa.Pa dated 11.02.2008 on the file of the second respondent herein and allow the civil revision petition.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ilanchezian For Respondents : Mr.C.Baskaran Government Advocate

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

The present civil revision petition has been filed challenging an order passed by the learned District Judge, Trichy in CMA (CS).No.37 of 2009 confirming an order passed under Section 87 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act.

¶24

2.The revision petitioner was working as a Secretary in a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank. On the basis of an audit report, surcharge proceedings were initiated as against the petitioner and three other persons under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act.

¶25

3.The main charges as against the petitioner was that the amount that was collected as jewel loan from the members to the extent of Rs.2,96,297/- was not given credit to and there was misappropriation of a sum of Rs.25,500/- from the savings bank account. The Deputy Registrar

¶26

2/7

¶27

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

¶28

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.2049 of 2012

¶29

of the Co-operative Society had conducted an enquiry and passed an order

¶30

on 31.10.1994 and arrived at a finding that the petitioner herein and four others officials were jointly and severally liable to pay the above said amount along with 18% interest. Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein had filed CMA.No.107 of 1995 before the Principal District Court, Trichy. The learned District Judge after providing due opportunity and after considering the enquiry report and the contentions of the petitioner herein, had confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Registrar. Challenging the said order, the present revision has been filed.

¶31

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that the petitioner was placed under suspension as Secretary of the Co-operative Society Bank between 15.07.1992 to 15.11.1992. The alleged irregularities are said to have taken place only during the said period. Hence, the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Society was not correct in imposing the liability upon the revision petitioner for the irregularities that had taken place during the period of suspension. He had further contended that no proper opportunity was afforded to him while defending the said enquiry.

¶32

3/7

¶33

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

¶34

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.2049 of 2012

¶35

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that the petitioner was no way connected with the alleged misappropriation and he was not the Secretary in-charge during the period of misappropriation. Hence, he prayed for allowing the revision petition and to set aside the order passed in the surcharge proceedings.

¶36

6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents Bank had contended that the irregularities have taken place between 1987 to 1993 and hence, the contention of the petitioner that he was not in-charge during the relevant point of time is not factually correct. He had further contended that an adequate opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and only after furnishing the copy of Section 81 report, the order was passed. In the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Registrar, the petitioner was found guilty of the first charge namely with regard to the misappropriation of an extent of Rs.2,96,297/-. However, the petitioner was discharged from the second charge namely misappropriation to a tune of about Rs.2,45,500/-. Hence, the enquiry was conducted in a fair manner and on merits, the orders have been passed. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the revision petition.

¶37

4/7

¶38

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

¶39

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.2049 of 2012

¶40

7.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶41

8.The proceedings under Section 87 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 have been initiated as against the revision petitioner for the irregularities that have taken place between 1987-1988 to 1991-1993. During the enquiry, the petitioner has been permitted to engage an Advocate to defend himself and he has also filed a written explanation. After enquiry got concluded, the report has also been furnished to the revision petitioner. However, the first defence taken by the revision petitioner is that he was under suspension from 15.07.1992 to 15.11.1992 and hence, the charges against him for the said relevant period is not maintainable.

¶42

9.As could be seen from the records, the irregularities are not in four months period during which the revision petitioner was under suspension. The charges are covered from the year 1987 – 1993. Hence, the contention of the counsel for the revision petitioner that he is not liable for the said irregularities is not legally sustainable. Apart from the said defence, no other contention has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Deputy Registrar after careful consideration and analysis of

¶43

5/7

¶44

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

¶45

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.2049 of 2012

¶46

the documents, had passed the order under Section 87 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The Co-operative Tribunal has also properly considered the defence raised by the revision petitioner and has rejected the same on the basis of the records.

¶47

10.In view of the above said facts, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Co-operative Tribunal. This Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶48

09.02.2023

¶49

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No msa To

¶50

1.The Principal District Judge Tiruchirappalli

¶51

2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶52

6/7

¶53

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

¶54

C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.2049 of 2012

¶55

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J

¶56

msa

¶57

Pre-delivery order made in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD).No.2049 of 2012 and MP(MD).No.2 of 2012

¶58

09.02.2023

¶59

7/7

¶60

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

Selvaraj v. the Pettavaithalai Primary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Selvaraj v. the Pettavaithalai Primary

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

T. Muthusamy, Vs K. Ramasamy

Durgadevi Vs R. Viswanath

R. Bharathi Vs Janab Mohammed Salavudeen

Meena Vs Anand

T.Kavitha Vs Sri Senthurandavar Auto Finance

Arulmighu Vadakkuvasal Chelliamman, Vs the Assistant Commissioner