J.Natarajan, Vs the Registrar of Coop.

To issue a Writ or Order Direction or in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Order passed by the second respondent in Na.ka.No.982/2011 dated 29.07.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the second respondent to promote the petitioner as General Manager and other orders as the court

¶17

1/6

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD) No.6575 of 2017

¶20

may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

¶21

PRAYER in WMP:

¶22

To dispense with the production of the original impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.982/2011/Al dated 29.07.2011 and thus render justice.

¶23

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:

¶24

For Petitioner : Mr.G.M.Xavier, Advocate

¶25

For Respondents : Mr.J.Ashok, Additional Government Pleader for R1&2

¶26

: Mr.D.Shanmuga Raja Sethupathy, Advocate for R3

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Heard.

¶29

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 29.07.2011 passed by

¶30

the 2^nd respondent, the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, whereby he

¶31

was demoted from the post of General Manager to Assistant General

¶32

Manager, and a recovery of Rs.95,384/- was ordered towards loss of interest.

¶33

2/6

¶34

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

¶35

W.P.(MD) No.6575 of 2017

¶36

Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act. By order dated 07.08.2012, the revisional authority set aside the recovery but upheld the order of demotion. The petitioner thereafter filed a second revision before the Government, which came to be rejected by G.O.Ms.No.77, Cooperation Department, dated 10.06.2015. In the meantime, the petitioner retired from service on 26.06.2013 and was extended all superannuation benefits.

¶37

It is not made clear as to how the petitioner can now assail the original order of demotion dated 29.07.2011, that too after the lapse of six years, before this Court. In these circumstances, the very maintainability of the writ petition becomes questionable, particularly in view of the larger Bench decision of this Court in K. Marappan v. Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Namakkal, reported i n 2006 (4) CTC 687 .

¶38

The petitioner chose not to challenge either the first revisional order, wherein the demotion was upheld, or the second revisional order of the Government, which also resulted in dismissal. In the absence of any challenge to those orders, the petitioner cannot now assail the original order.

¶39

3/6

¶40

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

¶41

W.P.(MD) No.6575 of 2017

¶42

Moreover, the petitioner has not furnished any explanation for the inordinate

¶43

delay in approaching this Court and is clearly guilty of delay and laches.

¶44

In paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated as

¶45

follows:-

¶46

“15. It is not correct to state that the petitioner has not joined duty as Assistant General Manager. The order of punishment was imposed depromoting the petitioner on 29.07.2011. He attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2011. When the order of punishment was given effect, it cannot be stated that the petitioner had not joined duty to the reverted post. Even assuming, the petitioner has not joined to the reverted post, it cannot be stated that the petitioner was holding the post of General Manager till the date of superannuation. Therefore, contention of the petitioner in this regard is not sustainable. Further, the contention of the petitioner that he was paid salary applicable to the post of General Manager from 23.11.2010 to 30.07.2011 is not correct and the same is false and misleading.”

¶47