Allowed

R.M.Napoleon v. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies

Madras HC16 Jul 2026WP(MD)/10993/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench held the third respondent lacked jurisdiction to dismiss a common cadre employee and quashed the order. The case directed restoration of status and transfer of proceedings to the First Respondent.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 13.03.2026 quashed; petitioner's status restored as on that date; First Respondent directed to conduct disciplinary proceedings.

R.M.Napoleon Vs The Joint Registrar of Co-operative… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.10993 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 16.07.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.10993 of 2026 and

¶7

W.M.P.(MD) No.8573 of 2026

R.M.Napoleon

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies Sivagangai Region Sivagangai District

¶12

2.The Circle Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies Sivagangai Circle Sivagangai District

¶13

3.The Administrator N.N.630, Kombukaranendhal Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Kombukaranendhal Manamadurai Taluk Sivagangai District

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Page 1 of 7

¶16

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

¶17

PRAYER:

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.10993 of 2026

¶19

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the third respondent dated 13.03.2026 and quash the same and consequently directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the third respondent Society as Assistant Secretary within time stipulated by this Court.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeganathan

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan Counsel for the Govt. of Tamil Nadu for R1 & R2 Mr.S.Kumar for R3

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.03.2026, passed by the third respondent, whereby, the petitioner was dismissed from the services of the respondent – Society.

¶24

2. The impugned order has been challenged on various grounds, including on the ground that the third respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.

¶25

3. This Court, having taken note of the said submission and having examined the matter, passed an interim order on 20.04.2026 staying

¶26

Page 2 of 7

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(MD) No.10993 of 2026

¶29

operation of the impugned order dated 13.03.2026 passed by the third respondent. The said interim order dated 20.04.2026 reads as under:

¶30

“ Notice before admission.

¶31

2. Mr.S.Shaji Bino, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice for the respondents and seeks time for filing counter affidavit.

¶32

3. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner, being an Assistant Secretary working in the third respondent Society, would fall within the definition of a “common cadre employee” as defined under the Tamil Nadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Societies (PACCS) Common Cadre Service Rules, 2019. In terms of Sub-Rule (8) of Rule 30 of the said Rules, the disciplinary authority is the Common Cadre Authority as defined therein. However, the impugned order dated 13.03.2026 has been passed by the third respondent, dismissing the petitioner from the post of Assistant Secretary of the third respondent Society. In the circumstances, prima facie it appears that the impugned order has been passed in violation of Sub-Rule (8) of Rule 30 of the said Rules, without there being any authority or power vested in the third respondent.

¶33

4. In the said circumstances, there shall be an order of interim stay of the operation of the impugned proceedings until further orders.

¶34

5. List the matter on 16.07.2026 for fiing counter affidavit. ”

¶35

_____________ Page 3 of 7_

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD) No.10993 of 2026

¶38

4. Though the third respondent filed a counter-affidavit and taken a stand that the Tamil Nadu Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Societies

¶39

Common Cadre Service Rules, 2019 (in short, “Common Cadre Service Rules”), have no application to the case of the petitioner, learned counsel for the third respondent across the Bar submits that the Common Cadre Service Rules do apply to the case of the petitioner and therefore, it is only the first respondent, who is competent to take disciplinary action against the petitioner, who served as Assistant Secretary in the respondent – Society and seeks appropriate direction to the first respondent to pass orders in the disciplinary proceedings in question.

¶40

5. In the light of the above, it is not in dispute that the third respondent has no competency to pass the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service and it is only the first respondent is competent in terms of the Common Cadre Service Rules.

¶41

6. In the light of the above, the impugned order dated 13.03.2026, passed by the third respondent, cannot be sustained and the same is, accordingly, quashed granting liberty to the third respondent to place the entire materials before the first respondent for taking appropriate steps in this

¶42

_____________ Page 4 of 7_

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.(MD) No.10993 of 2026

¶45

matter. It is further directed that the first respondent, before taking any final decision in this matter, shall afford an opportunity to the petitioner and take a decision thereafter in accordance with law. Consequent upon the quashing of the impugned order, the status of the petitioner, as on the date of passing of the impugned order, shall stand restored. The third respondent shall also take necessary steps for payment of subsistence allowance, in case if the third respondent intends to continue the petitioner under suspension pending passing of orders by the first respondent, as directed above.

¶46