Accountant of a cooperative marketing society dismissed over theft of paddy bags challenged the dismissal and appellate/review orders under Article 226. Unable to show his Rs.10 lakh payment was made under protest, the petitioner failed; the court declined to re-appreciate evidence and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(MD) No.9813 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD) No.9813 of 2021 and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.7541 & 7542 of 2021
S.K.Ramachandran
... Petitioner
-vs-
Page 1 of 7
W.P.(MD) No.9813 of 2021
4.0.965, Sankarankovil Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society Limited rep.by its President Sankarankovil, Tenkasi District ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 11.06.2018 and the consequential impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.8348/2018 dated 03.10.2020 and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.J.Karthick For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran Additional Government Pleader
O R D E R
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned orders dismissing the petitioner from service.
Page 2 of 7
W.P.(MD) No.9813 of 2021
2. The petitioner was working as an Accountant / Manager (Incharge) in the respondent – Society. Charges were framed against him in the disciplinary proceedings, on the ground that the petitioner was responsible for the theft of 2450 paddy bags. It is also represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the respondent – Society under protest, even though the petitioner was not responsible for the theft. He would also submit that other persons were also involved in dealing with the paddy bags belonging to the respondent – Society, namely, Managing Director and other responsible officers. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the petitioner has been selectively targeted by the respondent – Society and he would also submit that the petitioner is innocent of the charges framed against him in the disciplinary proceedings.
3. On the last hearing date i.e., on 24.10.2025, this Court directed the learned counsel to produce any evidence to show that the said sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid by the petitioner under protest or any admission made by the respondent - Society in the enquiry proceedings that the said amount was paid by the petitioner only under protest.
_____________ Page 3 of 7_
W.P.(MD) No.9813 of 2021
4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to produce any evidence before this Court for the petitioner having paid the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the respondents under protest.
5. Only based on the evidence available on record, the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry proceedings held that the petitioner is guilty of the charges framed against him in the disciplinary proceedings. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the first respondent against the impugned order passed by the second respondent also got dismissed. Thereafter, a review petition was also filed by the petitioner before the first respondent and the said review petition also came to be dismissed under the impugned order dated 03.10.2020.
6. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence, when only based on the evidence available on record, the respective respondents have passed the impugned orders dismissing the petitioner from service. Unless and until the findings of the respective respondents are perverse, this Court, through this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot
_____________ Page 4 of 7_
W.P.(MD) No.9813 of 2021
interfere with the impugned orders. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
28.10.2025
NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No
krk
To: 1.The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Society, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.
Page 5 of 7
W.P.(MD) No.9813 of 2021
Page 6 of 7
W.P.(MD) No.9813 of 2021
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
krk
W.P.(MD) No.9813 of 2021 and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.7541 & 7542 of 2021
28.10.2025
_____________ Page 7 of 7_
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Article 226 permits interference with dismissal from service when disciplinary findings rest on evidence on record and are not perverse.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.K.Ramachandran
The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Society Tirunelveli Tirunelveli District
The Managing Director, Sankarankovil Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society Limited
The President, Sankarankovil Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society Limited
Sankarankovil Agricultural Producers Cooperative Marketing Society Limited (rep. by its President)
Abdul Quddhose
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
