IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :11.11.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH W.P.NO.13346 Of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 K.Krishnan .. Petitioner /vs/ 1.The Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies O/o Registrar of Co-operative Societies Kilpauk, Chennai 10 2.The Joint Registrar/Chairman Common Cadre Committee Salem District Primary Agricultural Co-operative Socieites, Salem Region Salem 3.The Special Officer Ramamoorthy Nagar Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ramamoorthy Nagar Post Omalur Taluk, Salem District .. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in Revision Petition Na.Ka.144075/07/Sa.Pa.1 dated 30.04.2010 confirming the order of second respondent in Na.Ka.12627/2006 Ma.Va dated 23.05.2007 quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all backwages. For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy For Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr.L.P.Shanmugasundaram For Respondent No.3 : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 30.04.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by which an order passed by the second respondent dated 23.05.2007 dismissing the petitioner from service was upheld. 2. The petitioner herein was working as a Secretary in the third respondent Society. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner based upon the enquiry conducted under Section 81 of the TamilNadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. In pursuant to the charges framed against the petitioner as per the charge memo dated 23.08.2002, initially, a punishment has been imposed by the proceedings of the third respondent dated 10.03.2003. Thereafter, by adding additional charges, a fresh charge memo was issued by the third respondent on 30.04.2004. After considering the explanation of the petitioner, an enquiry officer was appointed. The second respondent issued a show cause notice dated 25.01.2007 and thereafter the petitioner was dismissed from service. Being aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the first respondent. The first respondent dismissed the same by proceedings dated 30.04.2010 without considering the initial charge and the punishment imposed thereon. Challenging the above said proceedings, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the very initiation of proceedings of the third respondent is one without jurisdiction or authority. The third respondent does not have the power under Section 75 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and Regulation 3 and therefore, the very initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner is without jurisdiction. Consequently, the order passed by the second respondent as confirmed by the first respondent, cannot be sustained. 4. Another submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no basis for the subsequent proceedings. In view of the earlier proceedings by which, an order of punishment has been made, the subsequent proceedings are bad. In support of the contentions, the learned counsel relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in Writ Appeal No.1284 of 2006 dated 13.12.2006 (The Special Officer, H.H.496,Isukkazhikatteri Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Isukkazhikatteri Village, Thiruvannamalai Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District vs. A.Sundaram), which has been subsequently followed in Writ Appeal No.53 of 2009, dated 08.09.2010 and submitted that the writ petition has to be allowed by setting aside the order of the first respondent and liberty be given to the respondents to proceed afresh after following due process of law. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts on hand. The issue involved in those cases relates to the action taken by the Special https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Officer in dismissing the employee concerned, which is not the same situation in the present case on hand. Admittedly, in the present case, the order of punishment has been imposed by the second respondent, who was the competent authority to do so at the relevant point of time. Any authority, who is Superior to the Delinquent Officer can initiate the proceedings as held by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1996(2) SCC 145 (Inspector General of Police and another vs. Thavasiappan). The petitioner has not raised the issue regarding competency either of the second respondent or the first respondent during the proceedings. . The entire proceedings have been initiated in pursuant to the directions issued by the competent authority under Section 81 of Tamil Nadu Co- operative Societies Act, 1983. That is the reason why the proceedings have been initiated and the departmental action taken against the petitioner, apart from taking action as per the Code of Criminal Procedure by invoking the power under Section 87 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act through the surcharge proceedings. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has not shown any prejudice for the initiation of action and therefore in the absence of the same, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the procedure adopted by the respondents especially when the bye-laws provides power for respondent No.3 to initiate action against the petitioner. 6. The Government order relied upon by the petitioner, which has been referred by the Hon'ble Division Bench in G.O.Ms.No.55, Co- operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 24.03.2000 does not prohibit the Special Officer from taking action and the same is not contrary to Section 75(3) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and under Regulation 3, which speaks about punishment. The learned counsel for the respondents therefore submitted that the writ petition has to be dismissed. 7. The facts are not in dispute. Admittedly it is seen from the records that action was taken against the petitioner in pursuant to the enquiry conducted under Section 81 of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. clause 6 speaks about the power of Registrar in directing the registered Society to take such action as may be prescribed. As seen from the order of respondent No.1, there was a stay granted by this Court against the operation of the Constitution of Common Cadre System as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 24.03.2000. This Court is primarily concerned with the charge memo issued on 30.04.2004. The said charge memo is in relation to the additional charges framed against the petitioner. Merely because, the charge memo was issued by the third respondent, it cannot be said that the entire proceedings will have to be declared as void ab initio and one without jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is not necessary that the charges should be framed only by the competent authority to award the proposed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ punishment. Admittedly, the respondent No.3 is a Superior Authority to the petitioner. It is the third respondent, who was in-charge of the administration of society as per the bye-laws. The reliance made by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.55, dated 24.03.2000 is to that effect that the cadre authority is Joint Registrar and therefore the third respondent has no power or jurisdiction cannot be accepted for the reason, the said Government Order only speaks about the imposition of punishment and not otherwise. There is nothing on record to suggest that the third respondent has no power or jurisdiction to take action against the petitioner. Apart from the same, it is seen that the petitioner has submitted to the proceedings initiated against him in pursuant to the charges framed. The petitioner gave his explanation and participated in the enquiry. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by respondent No.2 and after considering the entire materials available on record including the explanation of the petitioner, the order of dismissal was passed. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the proceeding initiated is without jurisdiction and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts on hand. It is trite law that the judgment of the Court of law cannot be read like a statute but it should be found out whether it can be made applicable to the facts of the case. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on earlier two occasions while dealing with the order of dismissal passed by the Special Officer, following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it is not necessary that the Disciplinary Authority alone has to initiate the proceedings. Be that as it may, in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Appeal No.53 of 2009, the Hon'ble Division Bench was only pleased to hold that the Special Officer was not the competent authority to inflict the order of dismissal. 8. Apart from the same, in the present case on hand, the order of dismissal has been passed by the second respondent. Admittedly, at the time of initiation of disciplinary proceedings the Government passed in G.O.Ms.No.55, Co-operative, Food and Consumer Protection Department, dated 24.03.2000 which stayed by this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire proceeding will have to be set aside as one without authority of jurisdiction cannot be accepted. 9. When once this Court holds that the initiation of the proceeding is proper then the other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without issuing the charge memo the order of dismissal cannot be sustained is not acceptable. A show cause notice has been issued by the second respondent. The petitioner has gave his explanation, then the charges have been framed, and he willingly participated in the enquiry. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. In the light of the discussion made above by this Court holding that the initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings is proper there is no necessity for fresh charge memo to be issued by the respondent No.2. Therefore, this Court is of the view, the impugned order passed by the second respondent as confirmed by the first respondent relying upon the charges framed by the third respondent and the consequent report of the enquiry officer cannot be found fault with. 11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ari To 1. The Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies O/o Registrar of Co-operative Societies Kilpauk, Chennai 10 2.The Joint Registrar/Chairman Common Cadre Committee Salem District Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies, Salem Region, Salem 3.The Special Officer Ramamoorthy Nagar Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society Ramamoorthy Nagar Post Omalur Taluk, Salem District 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.68961 1 CC to Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy, Advocate, SR.68759 W.P.No.13346 of 2010 TEJ(CO) SRA(7/11/2011) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/